Re: OT spammers

[Dimitri Yioulos <dy...@firstbhph.com>]

On Saturday April 29 2006 12:44 am, Richard Ozer wrote:
> I've purchased HUNDREDS of fake degrees and I feel much smarter because of
> it!
>
> Serious answer.... many spammers are probably paid per email.  Others
> figure that more retries to a given address will result in a higher
> likelihood of the mail being read (or read by accident).  But you are
> right... it sure looks bizarre from the outside...
>
> RO
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Igor Chudov" <ic...@Algebra.Com>
> To: "Spamassassin Mailing List" <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:24 PM
> Subject: OT spammers
>
> > Here's something that I do not understand. What is the point of
> > spamming people repeatedly not once, twice, or even 10 times, but
> > hundreds of times. If I wanted to procure pils, or pgrn, or whatever,
> > I would have done it on the first 10 spams. After 100 or so spams,
> > what is the benefit of sending me yet more spam? I seem to receive
> > some spams, such as about getting fake education, way over 100 times.
> >
> > i

What I don't get is who in his/her right mind would respond to a piece of spam 
that uses so much obfuscation as to be almost unreadable.  But, as they say, 
if it didn't work nobody would be doing it.

Dimitri

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: OT spammers

[Dimitri Yioulos <dy...@firstbhph.com>]

On Tuesday May 02 2006 1:55 am, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > What I don't get is who in his/her right mind would respond to a piece of
>
> spam
>
> > that uses so much obfuscation as to be almost unreadable.  But, as they
>
> say,
>
> > if it didn't work nobody would be doing it.
>
> Perhaps spammer's targets are poor enough at grammar and spelling that they
> don't realize the message is obfuscated?
>
>         Loren

So, they get what they deserve.  But, I do feel sorry for the dyslexics.

Dimitri

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: OT spammers

[Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>]

> What I don't get is who in his/her right mind would respond to a piece of
spam
> that uses so much obfuscation as to be almost unreadable.  But, as they
say,
> if it didn't work nobody would be doing it.

Perhaps spammer's targets are poor enough at grammar and spelling that they
don't realize the message is obfuscated?

        Loren