Zonkie, this article called "How do Spammers Work?" discusses how spammers might get paid: spamblogging.com. The problem with getting paid by click throughs is that you'd need to have a fixed server where you could monitor and track them, which would make you easier to track and block. Instead, spammers normally hijack other computers so they can't be traced. And even if you could be secure that you couldn't be tracked and/or blocked, spam itself is bad enough, let alone encouraging others to spam back:
A no doubt impossible suggestion: how about the big email sites, hotmail, yahoo, etc., replying to identified spam with, say, a thousand replies per spammed in-box? Jam the spam, and continue to do so, and maybe, just maybe, they'd get the idea.
Posted by: Norm at April 19, 2004 01:11 PM
Norm - I love that!
There have been numerous attempts to flood the e-mail inboxes of spammers via the outraged public in the past (or the denial of service via pings and whatnot). Traditionally the spammers whine that they are being abused, failing to see the irony in what they are complaining about.
That said, in doing that, it would be sinking to the same level as the spammers. Now, perhaps that shouldn't matter - after all, in war the saying is that you don't come to play fair, you come to win.
But if there are legal implications in sending out unwanted mass mailings, then responding to those that break the law by spamming them back will then technically bring that law against you as well.
You could then made an amendment that says that you are allowed to respond in such a way, but that then opens up a loophole for spammers to use.
As for DBSJ and other penny stock spams, there's no place to click anyhow. I suppose a spammer might get compensated by the rise in a stock price, but that would be an inexact science. That's why these sorts of spammers are likely just paid stock or cash up front.
- Jeff |
