(no subject)

[mithriltabby]

I can understand spammers selling mortgages and viagra and all that because there’s a continuing market for it, and they only have to get a very small hit rate of fools to make it worthwhile to spam everyone. But haven’t the frelling 419 scammers managed to find all the gullible suckers already? Or is there an extension to P T Barnum’s aphorism: a new sucker logs onto the Internet every minute?

Comments

[mithriltabby]

I think there is a rule in advertising that you need to get people to look at an advert at least half a dozen times before they’ll consider buying it. I find the Nigerian scammers puzzling, though, because they’re preying on a different social characteristic than advertisers are, and I’d expect saturation with the usual “woe is me, please help me transfer oodles of money, I’ll give you a cut” spiel to wear out much more quickly than “buy this!”

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

It's still puzzling to see so many companies still using email advertisements. I would have thought that companies understand by now that spamming is a BAD thing and that their marketing budget is better spent on other kinds of advertising.

[mithriltabby]

Reputable companies don’t. Fly-by-night weasel-o-rama operations, on the other hand, can still make money off the idiots that respond to spam.

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

Point. So what we need is a two-prong solution that carries out harm against these companies and educates the idiots. -:-)

Operation "Make a Snowman" would be a good start.

[mithriltabby]

“Let’s Build a Snowman” is too good for them. No, for the companies that spam and employ spammers, the endless loop of Beastmaster 2 is the fitting punishment.

[cmccurry.livejournal.com]

And that's just for the first offense. Police Academy 2-6 for second offenses. I doubt we'd have repeat offenders after that point.