Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam

Darn!  Being an old timer I thought everything ended up with Nazis. I am 
disappointed to find that all the spam is the work of Al Qaeda 
operatives. I guess my theory of a Nazi conspiracy was totally wrong. 
Thanks for update Barry.

Chuck Wegrzyn

Barry Shein wrote:

> At 03:35 PM 6/29/2003 -0400, Paul Judge wrote:
> > >Just as in any other business, the profit in spamming is equal to revenues
> > >minus costs. In spamming, revenue is equal to the number of spam messages
> > >received times the response rate times the profit per item. Expenses include
>I will point out that the hard evidence for this is lacking.
>
>I realize that people go nuts at the suggestion that the world is
>completely whack-o and not nice and neat as they presume.
>
>But in truth for all we know 99% of the spam is being produced by
>well-funded Al Qaeda operatives intent on disrupting the internet and
>has virtually no commercial value as described.
>
>It's not that much harder to believe than the sort of .00001% return
>arguments many seem comfortable with. Of course, this doesn't mean
>there isn't ONE or TEN spammers who operate as supposed, I just wonder
>if they're actually responsible for the problem.
>
>Before the howling begins let me point out that I have finally made
>some inroads here showing that the amplification via hijacked servers
>is probably much more important to the spam problem than, for example,
>a rational profit motive (i.e., without stolen resources there would
>probably be no possibility of profit.)
>
>I realize that's closely related and would tend to support a
>profit-motivativation of some sort but, as with organized crime, is it
>the profit motive (e.g., profits on stolen goods) or the crime (the
>low cost of stealing goods) which underlies the problem?
>
>More to the point I would assert that if we don't endeavor to nail
>down hard evidence and work forward from there we're in great danger
>of shadow-boxing with our own imaginings about how we would like to
>think spammers operate.
>
>I realize the urge to show progress is great and fact-gathering sounds
>like a frustrating impediment to some, but...how bad would it be if
>our efforts turned out to be foolish and disconnected from reality,
>research into a June bug*?
>
>
>* June Bug: Famous (among some) case of a psychosomatic, non-existant,
>insect seriously disrupting several textile factories down south.
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg