<$BlogRSDUrl$>


Wednesday, November 29, 2006

What Are Spammers Thinking? 

Yes, I've been remiss about posting here recently, but I will skip the usual excuses this time. My ideal of course is to post something every day, as all good bloggers should, something short and pithy at least, but this would entail a controlled, harmonious existence in which interruptions and distractions are minimized, in which the appearance of balance and fortitude are in fact the situation. I like to imagine this might be true for me, someday, and I solemnly note the many other bloggers who seem to manage their output more consistently than I've been able to. I can only plead that the website itself takes priority; this blog is a lagniappe, for the 7 people who read it.

Today's pithy comment is about spammers. I mentioned a while back, facetiously, about going through the day's 10,000 spam. It was an exaggeration then; it isn't now. As domain administrator I still try to skim all the emails addressed *@locusmag.com, in hopes of catching the occasional misspelled or invalidly addressed (locusonline@locusmag.com; locsu@locusmag.com, etc.) email for something worth catching, but I'm on the verge of sending it all automatically to the bit bucket. My title query is to wonder what spammers are thinking when they send thousands of spam a day to obviously nonsensical email addresses -- moody@locusmag.com, fuller@locusmag.com, AmbroseXTishahick@locusmag.com, to pick 3 from the spam folder at random. Who do they think would ever see these emails? The number of spam received at legitimate addresses -- online, locus, mark, and a couple others @locusmag.com -- is a small proportion of the total.

UPDATE to reply to commentator Rick -- Hi Rick, but this is Mark, not Charles. See upper right corner. Charles does the magazine, I do the website, and this blog. Thanks for reading!
Comments:
Hi Charles, you have 8 readers now. I started following this blog last month.

REgarding the spam, on the end-user side, I get six or seven consecutive spams, supposedly from different "people," all pumping the same pink sheet stock using a graphic instead of text.

He won't buy the stock if Melinda sends the email, but maybe he will if the email is from Carlo, or Martin, or Stephanie. Sheesh.

Furthermore, if you ever pull a chart on any of these things, it's obvious they recycle the same message over and over. The charts don't lie, these are obvious pump and dump vehicles.
 
Quite simply, spammers are not thinking at all because they lack the fundamental capabilities of human decency. They are driven by the pursuit of the dollar and will do whatever it takes to get it - even if that something is generating millions of random, near-valid and valid-sounding email addresses. It's an incredibly small effort for them with their spammer software tools, but it is enormously troublesome for the poor individuals who receive it. It's not personal, you see. It's an automated process. A successful hit rate of less than 1 percent turns out to be very profitable for them.
 
Post a Comment


king under the dome

doctorow makers

banks transition

kress steal sky

atwood year flood

roberts yellow blue tibia

wilson julian comstock

 ness ask and answer

collins catching fire

collins hunger games

sawyer flashforward

baker hotel

disch proteus

tan tales

mazzucchelli asterios

zebrowski empties

morrow shambling

hamilton cpt future

beckett genesis

meller evo rx

bsg2

kurzweil transcend

sawyer wake

ness knife never letting go

barzak love we share

mcewan cement garden

holland sci-fi art

gladwell outliers

bittman food matters

baggini what's it all about

Still in progress:

ross rest is noise

aldiss billion year spree

pollan omnivore's dilemma



Mark R. Kelly
Profile
Email

The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of Mark R. Kelly, and do not reflect the editorial position of Locus Magazine.
Locus
Links
Latest Posts
Archives

  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?