[extropy-chat] About SPAM again

[Spike]

> 0.001%??? So if they send 1,000,000 emails, they only need 10 positive
> responses. Wow.

I don't understand why they need even .001%.  There are plenty
of products, seems like most of them that are still spamming,
that are *zero* cost to the spammer: advertise v1a.gra or
pharmaceuticals or that elk-derived orgasm cream.  Then if 
they get a check for fifty bucks, they need send nothing.
Who is going to report to the authorities that they are
stupid enough to fall for that old gag?  Would the authorities
do anything anyway?  For fifty bucks? 

> I've said this before here; the way to stop spam is to clog 
> up the reply channel...

I can imagine a class of spam which requires *no* reply
channel.  Example: a class of spam we might call Got-Milk
spam.  The got-milk ads are intriguing: they are not pushing
any particular *brand* of milk, but the milk producers 
somehow figured out a way to work together to increase
the public's consumption of milk, to their mutual benefit.

How long before we start getting jesus-is-coming spam?  That
stuff would be hard to filter, because there are so many
jesus-is-coming-ers that use the internet to keep reassuring
each other that jesus is still coming.

Actually I seldom see a spam anymore that has a clearly
defined reply channel that can be jammed for free.  Those
are all gone a long time ago.  A lot of office supply spam 
provided only a you-pay phone number, not an 800 number.  
Even if they provide an order address, you cannot jam it, 
since it would cost you to send them a phony order.

Unfortunately I suspect our spam headaches have not yet
peaked, yet the problem has already effectively made the 
internet functionally unavailable for millions.

spike