|
Where's the spam from
While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages). Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups. There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from Google Groups. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." --Bertrand Russell |
Where's the spam from
Mark Lloyd wrote:
While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages). Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups. There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from Google Groups. I post sometimes through google but I think g.mail, while from google, is just used to mask identity. My posts there do not come up as g.mail. Spammers come here because this is a popular group. |
Where's the spam from
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:45:35 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote: Mark Lloyd wrote: While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages). Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups. There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from Google Groups. I post sometimes through google but I think g.mail, while from google, is just used to mask identity. My posts there do not come up as g.mail. Spammers come here because this is a popular group. My testing, above, had nothing to do with a gmail address. I looked for the header that says: User-Agent: G2/1.0 -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." --Bertrand Russell |
Where's the spam from
On Mar 11, 4:36 am, wrote:
What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam. So what's the point of posting it in the first place? In normal advertising and sales circles, a direct salesman facing a customer might get a 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 return, a direct mail marketer might get 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, a spammer might get 1 in 10, 000. Since a spammer's costs are essentially zero per message it makes sense for them. R |
Where's the spam from
On Mar 10, 6:04 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:45:35 -0400, Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote: Mark Lloyd wrote: While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages). Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups. There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from Google Groups. I post sometimes through google but I think g.mail, while from google, is just used to mask identity. My posts there do not come up as g.mail. Spammers come here because this is a popular group. My testing, above, had nothing to do with a gmail address. I looked for the header that says: User-Agent: G2/1.0 Maybe we should just shoot them...? ;) R |
Where's the spam from
On Mar 10, 2:33 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." --Bertrand Russell A very quotable sig, but there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom - wisdom is highly preferred. I know plenty of intelligent people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is stupid. ;) R |
Where's the spam from
In article
, RicodJour wrote: I know plenty of intelligent people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is stupid. The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is the opposite of wise. What did you mean to say? |
Where's the spam from
On Mar 11, 11:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , RicodJour wrote: I know plenty of intelligent people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is stupid. The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is the opposite of wise. What did you mean to say? I meant exactly what I wrote, but I'll be happy to clarify it for you. You're inferring that I meant there is no correlation between intelligence and wisdom, but I certainly did not imply it. There are many types of intelligence, purportedly seven, but most often some sort of test-taking is the barometer of intelligence. All doctors and lawyers are intelligent or they'd never have graduated, and that puts them in the upper levels of 'intelligence'. Some of the stupidest people I know are doctors and lawyers. Eliot Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact is fairly stupid. Is that any clearer? R |
Where's the spam from
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:36:51 -0600, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:33:01 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote: While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages). Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups. There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from Google Groups. What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam. So what's the point of posting it in the first place? I suppose a FEW people read it. Maybe those don't want to admit that. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." --Bertrand Russell |
Where's the spam from
On Mar 11, 7:36 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Mar 11, 4:36 am, wrote: What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam. So what's the point of posting it in the first place? In normal advertising and sales circles, a direct salesman facing a customer might get a 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 return, a direct mail marketer might get 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, a spammer might get 1 in 10, 000. Since a spammer's costs are essentially zero per message it makes sense for them. R Unfortunately R's correct about "spammer arithmetic" :( their costs are so low that even a few hits are worth it......just like junk snail mail. If email providers charged for email (let say over some reasonable per day) spam "might" be reduced. Few or low cost resources tend to be over consumed. cheers Bob |
Where's the spam from
On Mar 11, 8:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , RicodJour wrote: I know plenty of intelligent people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is stupid. The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is the opposite of wise. What did you mean to say? What did you mean to say? seemed pretty clear to me & it has been my experience when dealing with stupid, wise & intelligent people. cheers Bob |
Where's the spam from
On Mar 11, 8:21 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:03 am, Smitty Two wrote: In article , RicodJour wrote: I know plenty of intelligent people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is stupid. The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is the opposite of wise. What did you mean to say? I meant exactly what I wrote, but I'll be happy to clarify it for you. You're inferring that I meant there is no correlation between intelligence and wisdom, but I certainly did not imply it. There are many types of intelligence, purportedly seven, but most often some sort of test-taking is the barometer of intelligence. All doctors and lawyers are intelligent or they'd never have graduated, and that puts them in the upper levels of 'intelligence'. Some of the stupidest people I know are doctors and lawyers. Eliot Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact is fairly stupid. Is that any clearer? R R- Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact is fairly stupid. At least now he can serve as a excellent "bad example". :) Too bad the law, in his case, be unequally applied...his resignation will serve as his punishment. If he was a "regular"guy or a high profile businessman, some eager federal prosecutor would go after him on federal charges. How poetic would that have been? cheers Bob |
Where's the spam from
|
Where's the spam from
BobK207 wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:36 am, RicodJour wrote: On Mar 11, 4:36 am, wrote: What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam. So what's the point of posting it in the first place? In normal advertising and sales circles, a direct salesman facing a customer might get a 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 return, a direct mail marketer might get 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, a spammer might get 1 in 10, 000. Since a spammer's costs are essentially zero per message it makes sense for them. R Unfortunately R's correct about "spammer arithmetic" :( their costs are so low that even a few hits are worth it......just like junk snail mail. If email providers charged for email (let say over some reasonable per day) spam "might" be reduced. Few or low cost resources tend to be over consumed. Sadly, I have to concur. They're latching on to an equivalent elsewhere, as well. :( |
Where's the spam from
In article
, RicodJour wrote: On Mar 11, 11:03 am, Smitty Two wrote: In article , RicodJour wrote: I know plenty of intelligent people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is stupid. The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is the opposite of wise. What did you mean to say? I meant exactly what I wrote, but I'll be happy to clarify it for you. You're inferring that I meant there is no correlation between intelligence and wisdom, but I certainly did not imply it. There are many types of intelligence, purportedly seven, but most often some sort of test-taking is the barometer of intelligence. All doctors and lawyers are intelligent or they'd never have graduated, and that puts them in the upper levels of 'intelligence'. Some of the stupidest people I know are doctors and lawyers. Eliot Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact is fairly stupid. Is that any clearer? R Is it any clearer? No, it isn't. But thanks for the effort. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter