Is spam meant to be read or really just meant to generate sales of anti-spam products?
from StephenWeinstein
Someone calculated that it was so inexpensive to send spam that even if only 1% of recipients bought what was being sold, it would still be cost-effective to send it. However, I receive so much that I estimate that the average person reads less than 1% of the spam they receive.
Someone calculated that it was so inexpensive to send spam that even if only 1% of recipients bought what was being sold, it would still be cost-effective to send it. However, I receive so much that I estimate that the average person reads less than 1% of the spam they receive.
How do we know, really know, that these organ-enlargement, questionable medication, Nigerian funds, etc., promoters really exist? Could the companies that make money from anti-spam products be secretly behind most or all of the spam, and sending it themselves in order to increase their profits from anti-spam products?
the only good Spam is the one in the can
Spam may have started out to be ad-oriented, however nowadays much of it is malware-oriented & phishing-oriented by the criminal element, as in ID theft, building bot networks, etc.
As for the anti-spam software companies being behind it–doubtful. I have never spent a dime on their products. I use the free ones, there’s tons of them available
.