"William R. Walsh" wrote in message
...

snip

The thing that bugs me about it is this: spammers don't stick around
if their campaigns are not successful. And yet these spammers are here
time and again with the same phony products! Someone almost certainly
must be buying this crap...but who is it?

snip

I don't think they are so much interested in selling crap as getting people
to go to their websites so that they can install viruses, trojans,
keyloggers etc on one's computer.

Mark Z.

Hi!

I don't think they are so much interested in selling crap as getting
people to go to their websites so that they can install viruses,
trojans, keyloggers etc on one's computer.

I hadn't thought of that. Even so, I'd really be surprised if the
regulars in this newsgroup would engage in such risky behavior.

I've never been to any of the spamvertised sites and I never intend to
go there.

William

On 4/28/2010 8:29 AM William R. Walsh spake thus:

[some unattributed poster wrote:]

I don't think they are so much interested in selling crap as getting
people to go to their websites so that they can install viruses,
trojans, keyloggers etc on one's computer.

I hadn't thought of that. Even so, I'd really be surprised if the
regulars in this newsgroup would engage in such risky behavior.

I've never been to any of the spamvertised sites and I never intend to
go there.

None of what you've just said makes the slightest difference. You're
trying to attribute spammers' behavior to some kind of logic, which is
completely undeserved.

Methinks their strategy is usually (always?) some variant of "just throw
a bunch of **** at the wall and see what sticks". Posting spam here and
elsewhere costs them pretty much nothing; why *shouldn't* they do it?
(From their POV, of course, not mine.) It's not as if they're doing any
kind of sophisticated econometric analysis to see how they should
allocate their marketing resources ...


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:12:37 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 4/28/2010 8:29 AM William R. Walsh spake thus:

[some unattributed poster wrote:]

I don't think they are so much interested in selling crap as getting
people to go to their websites so that they can install viruses,
trojans, keyloggers etc on one's computer.

I hadn't thought of that. Even so, I'd really be surprised if the
regulars in this newsgroup would engage in such risky behavior.

I've never been to any of the spamvertised sites and I never intend to
go there.

None of what you've just said makes the slightest difference. You're
trying to attribute spammers' behavior to some kind of logic, which is
completely undeserved.

Methinks their strategy is usually (always?) some variant of "just throw
a bunch of **** at the wall and see what sticks". Posting spam here and
elsewhere costs them pretty much nothing; why *shouldn't* they do it?
(From their POV, of course, not mine.) It's not as if they're doing any
kind of sophisticated econometric analysis to see how they should
allocate their marketing resources ...

There is a simple solution. A robot network that does a DOS on all IPs
that are found in spams, so that spammers find that they are spending
a lot of money on their Internet connection and getting no return from
the investment.

Now if someone would actually do that. All it takes is a short little
program that grabs the spam web page, over and over and over and over.