Hallo Claude,
On Saturday, September 25, 1999, 8:34:40 AM, Claude wrote:
SL>> Friday, September 24, 1999, 11:12:39 AM, Thomas wrote:
>>> I still think that overhead is not necessarily the concern of
>>> spammers. If they want to get the spam out, and it takes 35 minuters
>>> to do so instead of june 1 minute, but the chances are that they are
>>> read, they'll have success. Empirical data says one in 1,000 is a
>>> positive response for them.
SL>> And in that same 35 minutes they could pump out ~120% more addresses. So
SL>> if 5 is a "good" return, then 690 must be much better.
C> There is a little difference between a post which is *sent* and a post
C> which is *read*.
C> But some actually pay housewives to hand write addresses. Why ?
C> Because they actually know that this seems *personal* snailmail, and
C> a very bigger amount of receivers will open the envelope instead of
C> sending everything in the litter box *before*.
In snailmail, this increases the probability of a positive return from
1 in 1,000 to 1 in (I don't remember, school was a long time ago, I
think it was:) 200.
--
Cheers,
Thomas mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message reply created with The Bat! 1.36 Beta/4
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
using a Celeron-MMX 366 Mhz, 128MB RAM
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
