Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

David Harris On Spam

Posted by timothy on from the this-is-david-harris dept.

Ace Suares writes "David Harris, maker of the free e-mail software Pegasus Mail, has written a white paper on spam as part of 'an active initiative to bring together a broad group of people who can promote education and legislation against spam in the New Zealand environment'."

3 of 21 comments (clear)

  1. Math lessons by Phronesis · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the white paper:
    Imagine for a moment that a spammer promoting penile enlargement pills for $29.95 a bottle sends out ten million spams - a very moderate number by modern standards. If the spammer gets one thousandth of one percent sales response (.001%), he will sell 10,000 bottles, for a total return of $299,500.00. Even on response rates as small as one millionth of one percent, operations like this can still turn a profit that makes them worthwhile, simply because of the enormous number of addresses that can be reached at almost no cost.

    Last time I checked 0.001% of 10^7 was 100, not 10,000. The spammer would sell 100 bottles for a total return of $2,950, not a huge haul.

    At one one millionth of a percent response, he would sell on average one tenth of a bottle.

  2. the New Zealand Environment by falsification · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is the correct term. The old name was just "New Zealand." Due to legislation recently passed by the Parliamentary Body of the New Zealand Environment, it is henceforth illegal in the New Zealand Environment to say the words "New Zealand" if not sandwiching them between "The" and "Environment." The New Zealand Environment is a fully protected copyrighted trademark. Anyone who uses the term the New Zealand Environment without permission must pay $5 to the New Zealand Environment. Thank goodness Slashdot has caught on to this in time, or it would be liable for $5 for every hit.

  3. Re:the cost is increasing by zcat_NZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ..about a spammer who was harrassed until he had to shut down his operation..

    we wish..
    harassed == a few phone calls (only 20? wtf?!!)
    shut down == switched to search-engine and referer spamming

    Personally I think 'cost' is where the answer is, but not in the form of an email tax!

    Every major ISP needs to clearly define what they consider 'spam', and then lay down enforceable rules about it such as "You WILL be charged a cleanup fee. You WILL be terminated immediately. Your name, company name, and known aliases WILL be publically blacklisted."

    Unlike the elsewhere-proposed 'email tax', these costs would only affect spammers.

    --
    455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2