SPAM, SPIT and now..

  smokingbeagle 09:49 22 Aug 2004

click here
Why can't we MAKE them leave us alone?

  Belatucadrus 11:30 22 Aug 2004

Because it's a cheap sales pitch and the number of idiots that respond to these dodgy adverts for herbal Viagra, XXX porn etc. make it very very profitable. Despite political pressure the American legislature is loath to act against them, so they bombard the general public with stuff that's all unwanted and sometimes disgusting, get very rich and live it up in Florida.
To be fair if they were shut down in the US they'd just move elsewhere.

  Falkyrn 12:42 22 Aug 2004

As Belatucadrus says the gullible (and the greedy) amongst us make these things very profitable for those at the top of these scams.

Official figures show that the nigerian 419 scam alone which is as obvious a fraud as you can get netted several million pounds from gullible (greedy) recipients in the UK

  Forum Editor 13:04 22 Aug 2004

when we stop responding, and there's evidence to show that not only do we respond, we do so in enormous numbers. Non of us would respond to the promise of enormously enhanced sexual prowess for $20 of course, but I hear there are seriously gullible people out there......millions of them in fact.

  smokingbeagle 13:23 22 Aug 2004

SPIT is spam over internet telephony, another joy that awaits us.

  €dstowe 13:52 22 Aug 2004

What I can't understand is the reason for sending email "messages" with no subject, no sender and no content - we get several of these per day. Also messages that contain random words resulting in the "message" being just garbage. They don't even contain a virus so, to me, they are completely and utterly pointless.

Does anyone know what these are supposed to achieve?

  spuds 17:41 22 Aug 2004

Perhaps to trace if there is a recipient. Possibly a bit like selling on mailing [email] lists!.

  Fateful Shadow 10:40 23 Aug 2004

We're going to have spammers, spitters and spimmers...I love technology :-S

  Indigo 1 23:08 23 Aug 2004

Wouldn't it be nice if we could come up with a foolproof way of blocking the messages at source ?

What I mean is, if say 1000 messages are sent from one source and are all returned to the same source 1000 times from each recipient with useless attachments of say 1 Mb (Grannies Birthday photo's or something) that would cause such an overload on their system as to crash it or at least render it useless for a time. Maybe then they would think twice.

Or have I just oversimplified it ?

  Falkyrn 08:05 24 Aug 2004

"Or have I just oversimplified it ?"

Unfortunately yes .... in many areas what they are doing whilst very annoying (for some) is perfectly legal while your suggestion is not.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review

Microsoft Paint set to die after 32 years

Mac power user tips and hidden tricks

Comment désactiver la saisie intuitive et paramétrer votre clavier ?