Subject: RE: spammer economics; was: RE: [Asrg] hiring challenge responders

From: "Bob Atkinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:50:56 -0700

While I readily and heartily agree that the more concrete the data the
better, the diversity and global scope of the interviews I've seen
(e.g.: some from New Zealand, some from Korea, in addition to several US
sources) and the specifics of the spammers' quotes therein make it
difficult to hold as plausible the scenario that the reporters are
cribbing from each other.

	Bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Shein [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:25 PM
To: Bob Atkinson
Cc: Barry Shein; Yakov Shafranovich; Dave Aronson; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: spammer economics; was: RE: [Asrg] hiring challenge
responders

I guess the executive summary of your message is: The plural of
anecdote is evidence.

Reporters repeat each other to generate copy, that the same anecdotes
and hearsay appear over and over proves nothing other than that the
reporters are also pretty good with google.

I'd prefer to see a 1040 or corporate quarterly which reflected facts,
or an accusation of tax fraud (bank statements, etc. would do.)

        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]           |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login:
617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989
*oo*

On August 12, 2003 at 13:50 [email-masked] (Bob Atkinson)
wrote:
 > It's good to be wary, but from the baker's dozen or so of spammer
 > interviews I've recently seen that have useful figures in them
there's a
 > surprising amount of consistency. Certainly enough to be able to
glean
 > useful ballparks of, e.g., click-through or conversion rates and
profit
 > per sale.
 > 
 > Indeed, if anything I suspect that spammers tend to brag here (but
not
 > much) more than they tend to dissemble in the other direction,
leading
 > to the fact that the numbers they let drop can be considered
 > conservative in what it takes to make them unprofitable.
 > 
 > The Iraqi playing card article, btw, can (or could) be found at any
of
 > the following (be aware though that there's some errors in the
 > arithmetic on the part of the reporter):
 > 
 > 	
 > http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-list/2003-June/046051.html
 > 	http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/09/technology/09CARD.html
 > 	http://www.iht.com/articles/99019.html
 > 	http://www.naplesnews.com/03/06/business/d855876a.htm
 > 
 > (Ya gotta love Google :-)
 > 
 > 	Bob
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: ... Barry Shein
 > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:44 PM
 > 
 > ...
 > 
 > I just have a little trouble believing what a marketeer tells a news
 > reporter about how great business is, particularly when they figure
 > they might have an interest.
 > 
 > 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:07:07 -0400

> cribbing from each other.

I think the spammers are cribbing from each other, and relatively little 
of it bears any resemblance to reality.

Such as when Ronald Scelson or Jef Slaton said how much they were 
making.  They are/were in reality both in the middle of bankruptcy 
proceedings.  Canter was evading process servers, and trying to get a 
programming job.

All of the marketers at the FTC spam panel said "we don't do X" (where X 
was one or more of spamming, forgeries, porn etc.).  Many of them were 
lying through their teeth.

Betterly was saying "we only send stuff to people who asked for it".
How come we got just as many complaints about her stuff as we got from 
Stubberfield's horse porn? (quiet you! ;-)