Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Spam The Almighty Buck

Building Better Spam 298

Posted by michael
from the for-great-profit dept.
henbane writes "Cringely is plugging a new method of advertising from Dr. Jim Kowalick and Mario Fantoni. Their book entitled 'E-Mailing Your Way to Sales With the Taguchi Approach' is out in the autumn. What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Building Better Spam

Comments Filter:
  • by canfirman (697952) <pdavi25.yahoo@ca> on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:01PM (#7064832)
    What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?

    The return of Yoko Ono?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Building Better Spam"

    Less pork fat.

    Coarser grinding.

    More spices.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:03PM (#7064847) Homepage
    ...aren't they making good money on carpet bombing? Why bother to target when you can reach all for pennies anyway. Of course, assuming you don't care about how many you piss off, which they normally don't.

    Kjella
    • by pavon (30274) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:10PM (#7064931)
      This improvement isn't about targeting specific gullible who are more likely to respond. It is about an easy, rigorous way to fine tune what the spam says to better play on one's gullibility. And the analysis is quite cheap, so it is well worth the effort.

      Or in your analogy, they are still hitting as many people with their better carpet bomb, but sustain more fatalities.
      • fine tune what the spam says to better play on one's gullibility

        so, come early next year, i should have a medicine cabinet full of viagra, and a closet full of penis pumps? (disclaimer: i haven't been convinced as of yet why i require either.)

        or, do they play better on how to not get marked 13.5 - Spam , by Spam Assassin...
  • by ScooterBill (599835) * on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:03PM (#7064855)
    After reading the article I realized that I must be doing something wrong. I always click on every link in every email I get but still my penis hasn't gotten bigger, I don't have a horde of horny teens after me and I'm not rich.

    What gives?

    M
    • by DreadSpoon (653424) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:31PM (#7065130) Journal
      You haven't sent me the $19.95 the e-mail requested, of course! Send me the money, and I promise I'll deliver the possiblity of perhaps maybe getting all your desires.*

      (*note: "all your desires" is defined as "an e-mailed receipt** showing you paid $19.95 for penis enlargement.)

      (**note: by "e-mailed receipt", we mean e-mailed to all your friends, relatives, and co-workers.)
    • After reading the article I realized that I must be doing something wrong. I always click on every link in every email I get but still (1) my penis hasn't gotten bigger, (2) I don't have a horde of horny teens after me and (3) I'm not rich.

      In my observations, you need to achieve goal (3) first. This will lead to goal (2), which in turn will generally result in goal (1).

      Of course, YMMV.
  • What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?

    A method which increases the return on spam and but not the size of anyone's penis, Nigerian bank account, or breasts.

  • by NineNine (235196) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:04PM (#7064862)
    Did anybody RTFA? What does this have to do with spam? This is a originally a way of improving processes, primarily in engineering and/or manufacturing. Now, it's been applied to marketing. Since when is all spam considered marketing? I give this article a -1, Troll.
    • Ooops... "Since when is all marketing considered spam?"
    • by aborchers (471342) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:10PM (#7064921) Homepage Journal
      Did anybody RTFA? What does this have to do with spam?


      Thank you. That's exactly what I was about to say. I'll be the first to pull the trigger when we get the spammers against the wall, but just because it's email marketing doesn't make it spam. I get plenty of marketing mail for games, telescope equipment, and other stuff I'm actually interested in because I opted in to the lists after reviewing their policies on sharing my address and confirming that they wouldn't. This prevailing idea that every commercial use of email is spam is raving nonsense. It is sad that the spammers have managed to so thoroughly hijack people's perception of what can be a useful marketing vector.

      • I definitely second your comment there. This process looks like it's built for efficiency and a good design process, and could be applied to almost any field of engineering or problem solving.

        Marketing here in the U.S. has definitely become an evil, throat-cutting industry, but if someone can prevail with simple, effective ads that get to the point and don't leave consumers confused and disgusted, I think that would be a win for us all.

        Of course, as human nature would have it, the disgusting, false

      • What does this article have to do with email? The word "email" isn't even in the article.
    • spam is becoming a catch-all term for unsolicited direct marketing in any medium. junk mail, phone calls, email. maybe door-to-door salesmen will get a new name.

      commercials, billboards, signs, ads in magazines, product placement in films and video games, etc. doesn't count, since it's not direct.
  • At the least... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot@exitUMLAUT0.us minus punct> on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:05PM (#7064870) Homepage
    ...this would give anti-spam developers insight as to how to improve spam blocking techniques.
  • Evil plans (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:05PM (#7064871) Homepage Journal

    What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?

    Set someone's desktop picture and home page to be the goatse.cx guy. Truly evil, but it helped me train people to log off their machines when they weren't at their desks.
    • I don't understand how that can train people to log off. Mind to explain?
      • If they log off you can't change thier desktop background to something so offensive. So when they walk away from the computer without logging off you change the background. Who wants to come back to thier desktop and see a picture of the goatse.cx guy after all. Or, more importantly who wants to have thier boss see the goatse.cx guy on their desktop?
    • Set someone's desktop picture and home page to be the goatse.cx guy. Truly evil, but it helped me train people to log off their machines when they weren't at their desks.

      We used to have TONS of fun on the Sun Xterminals we each used to have on our desks. If you left yours unlocked, you were in for bad stuff. Examples:

      rsh into another server, and set up a cron job to email that person at a certain time every day. They would get an email from themself every day at the same time. We spoofed it so that

      • You don't have to be malicious and actually delete files. On unix the following can be wonderfully effective :
        mkdir ...
        mkdir .../...
        mkdir .../.../...
        mv * .* .../.../...
        If you want to be that tiny bit more nasty you might change those to "...\ ".

        Not that I'd ever do anything like that myself.

    • On unix machines I just changed peoples prompts. (In the right profile file, of course.) Usually to be something long and annoying - but I did have worse for those who did it more than once.

      But a prompt like :
      "I left myself logged in and some idiot came around and changed my prompt to this long and stupid thing here. \nI cant imagine why anyone would do such a mean thing anyway. \nIt is very annoying indeed and I should probably remember not to leave myself logged in again so that it cant happen to me

  • by MosesJones (55544) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:07PM (#7064890) Homepage

    Would be the advent of Interactive TV that works so Joe Sixpack can make the old WebTV crowd look smart, who in turn made us appreciate the AOLers.

    SPAM is an issue, don't get me wrong. But that is why I have an address on the internet and an address my mates use. SPAM on one is high, SPAM on the other is zero.

    This smacks as another "How to get rich like me" book where the real book should have only one page

    "Write book to sell to suckers who believe this is special"

    And finally, worse than SPAM would be the ability of goverments or companies to monitor your email to check you out and profile you.... but then that already happens, but as we don't see it we don't complain.

    SPAM is a pain in the arse, its getting worse, but its still easier to do email now than it was 15 years ago, when SPAM didn't really exist.
  • by cwernli (18353) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:07PM (#7064896) Homepage

    What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?

    1. sub spam1 { return $retval; }
    2. sub spam2 { return ++$retval; }

    The choice is yours...

  • the article is about a 7500 member opt-in list. That's not spam. A spam campaign would involve more on the order of 7500 MILLION mails. All this is is charging MBAs $1000s to apply the scientific method through linear algebra to marketing.

    I'm not at all convinced this is a bad thing. If this can tell them that short, spartan ads are more effective than long, graphics-heavy ones, it could probably tell them that a huge, untargetted spam campaign is a waste of money.
  • Taguchi's objective is robust design, which means building a product, system, or process that works well even in the presence of degrading influences. That means products that deliver value without breaking and services that are enduring while being as simple as possible. Taguchi first determines the control factors that go into designing a product, their interdependencies, then generates an orthogonal array specifying the number of experiments required to find the optimal solution. [....]

    That's when Ko

  • The article appears to be talking about opt-in email, not spam.
  • by klaxor (702442) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:11PM (#7064941)

    Because if they do, they'll figure out quickly that sending me spam won't increase their returns.

    Spam isn't hated because it is targetted advertising; precisely the opposite - SPAM is hated because it is untargetted. That is, people get spam for things that they would never buy. Personally, I do get targetted emails - I've given my address to local retailers, and I get their specials via email. I'm not annoyed at them. I'm annoyed at the folks who spam me with stuff that I would never even remotely be interested in.

    If making spammers more effective means that I won't get 50 emails a day for stuff I'll never buy, I'm all for it. If it means that I'll get discounts for stuff I do buy, then I won't mind too much.

    • Um, it does not help target email. All it does is figure out which type of ad makes you more likely to buy something.
    • If making spammers more effective means that I won't get 50 emails a day for stuff I'll never buy, I'm all for it. If it means that I'll get discounts for stuff I do buy, then I won't mind too much.

      And if this requires that information about you, including exactly what you purchase, is collected and sold on the open market, you don't mind?

      W
  • by silverhalide (584408) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:12PM (#7064951)
    Let's face it, spam with higher resposne rate is better than spam with little to no response rate. This could be the result of several things: better targetting (more likely to get to an interested audience), less offensive, more legit, etc. If all spammers tried to improve their response rates by simply cleaning their lists with people they know might be interested, and with products or services that were legit and of economic value, then the situation wouldn't be bad at all. I do tolerate spam from reputable companies I have done business with in the past or am actively looking to buy those sorts of products.

    But that's just wishful thinking.
  • by jrstewart (46866) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:13PM (#7064961) Homepage
    If everyone was committed to hitting a high enough rate of return with spam that could be great with users. Imagine spam with a 100% success rate. That would mean it was only mailed to people who actually wanted to buy the product or service. I'd say that would be a win for everyone.

    Remember how back in the early days of internet advertising the starry eyed utopians talked about how you could use advanced techniques to send email advertisements only to those who were probably interested? Of course these were utopians we're talking about so they didn't bother doing even a back of the envelope calculation of the cost of finding the right 300 people to send your ad to versus just sending it to 10 million.

    Unfortunately my understanding is the software referenced in cringely's article doesn't find the "right" people to spam, it just helps you punch up your ad copy. Which might double a spammers response rate from .0002% to .0004%. Still not enough to cut down on the amount of spam we recieve.

    The poster also slightly misrepresents cringely's article since cringely's not advocating the use of the software for spam but rather for auction listings.
    • Or we've all because suckers ;o)
    • Imagine spam with a 100% click return rate! I'd almost feel sorry for the poor web and db servers as they got DDOS'd into oblivion.
    • Imagine spam with a 100% success rate. That would mean it was only mailed to people who actually wanted to buy the product or service. I'd say that would be a win for everyone.

      Not so fast. It is my understanding that telemarketers and spammers often exploit those are not making rational decisions for themselves and are unable to say no. This is the legal version of taking candy from a baby.

      Just because it is happening to someone else's addled grandmother or retarded cousin, shouldn't absolve any of us

      • Not so fast. It is my understanding that telemarketers and spammers often exploit those are not making rational decisions for themselves and are unable to say no. This is the legal version of taking candy from a baby.

        Just because it is happening to someone else's addled grandmother or retarded cousin, shouldn't absolve any of us from our responsibility to protect the weak (and kill spammers dead).


        There are already fair trade practices laws that cover these cases and these people still get spam. I was mo
    • They aren't experimenting to get their -product- desireable by 100% of the people they advertise to.

      They're tweaking the advertisement to make the product -seem- desireable to 100% of the people they advertise to. To get more people to 'follow up' on that advertisement and check out the product.

      They aren't changing the product, or their advertising targets. They're finding the best way to present their product (word usage, images, stories, humor content, etc) to get as many people as possible to click t

  • Right now I get junk mail at home and I get spam. The junk mail at home is somewhat more useful, since I'm occasionally interested in coupons from the local pizza place or a $20-off coupon to Linens & Things. SPAM on the other hand, since it costs nearly nothing to send can be almost entirely useless to almost entirely everyone. If costs of sending spam were raised (via hashcash or signatures or whatever) and forgeries were difficult (through SPF/DMP/whatever), then spammers would either go out of bu
  • Andy Gibb, singing Shadow Dancing for eons and eons. And you have to wear orange plaid bell bottoms and sit next to the Bay City Rollers. /Dennis Leary reference
  • (OK, I'll admit, I read the fscking article.) And this "Taguchi Approach" sounds interesting, even if it's being applied to spam. I've dived the Waterfall Model, united teams with the Unified Process, spun out of control with the Spiral Model, and lived on the edge with eXtreme Programming. But I never heard of Taguchi.

    Anyone have a few choice pointers to just how Taguchi works? And if it's as geeky as the article says, how come it's rarely (never?) applied to software engineering?
  • by fname (199759) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:14PM (#7064973) Journal
    Cringley points out how standard engineering tools, in this case Taguchi's Design of Experiments (DOE) methods, can be used to increase the effectiveness of advertising. Claiming that he "plugs spam" is a complete mis-reading of the article. He points out the original study used "spam" in order to prove it's effectiveness; the study isn't dated.

    DOE is how engineers make complex design decisions with as few experiments as possible. Mostly, he uses eBay as an example. He slightly mis-reads what Taguchi's DOE is about when he says that the old eBay data can be mined to re-create an orthogonal array. The whole point of DOE is a priori deciding what experiments to run, instead of the shot-gun approach used in the past. If you're gonna use data mining, then you don't really need Taguchi excpet for data reduction.

    Personally, I recommended this approach to a high-volume eBay seller a couple years ago. He sells widgets with 3-4 different features (style, size, color), and uses a variety of terms to describe them (i.e. [stunning|beautiful|awesome] [rare|unique|one-of-a-kind]). Basically, he could run 16 or so tests using these various terms in the right combination, and determine which combinations were likely to work best. Ultimately, he didn't go down that route, but I'm pretty sure this is what Cringley was getting to before he got it confused w/ data mining.

    Using data mining to do the Taguchi stuff is tough, b/c there are too many uncontrolled factors. I'm sure he'll get 100 letters on the topic from DOE experts and write a follow-up column next week.

    As for spammers, I bet they start using DOE techniques, as they'll have to as fewe & fewer emails are getting through, making it a less profitable venture. Of course, legitimate advertisiers should be using the same techniques, and maybe they do. But DOE can be applied to any process, whether it is building cars, designing rockets, baking cookies, selling on eBay and, yes, sending spam.
    • This sounds like it shares some basic principles with Pairwise Testing. Basically, the theory here is that a large percentage of bugs come in through the combination of two inputs. So, if there are 10 bits in a flag, you need to only make sure that each pair shows up once: with various constraints, I got down from 1024 to 12 values to check on a recent test.

      Check out http://www.developsense.com/testing/PairwiseTestin g.html [developsense.com] for a better explanation, or anything else Google brings up for you.
    • Actually, if done correctly, DOE could actually reduce spam...one of the principles of statistical methods is increasing the signal-to-noise ratio to get a better product. Currently, most spams fail...a massive proportion fail. The current industry response to the problem of .001% response is to increase the total volume, hopefully getting a bit more of signal with a lot more noise. If these statistical methods are applied to targeting their e-mails correctly, and making it easier for people that really
  • Get rich quick! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by targo (409974) <targo_t@@@hotmail...com> on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:14PM (#7064976) Homepage
    From the article:

    They claim their work can be applied to any product or service and any advertising medium. And what presently requires sitting for those couple of sessions with Kowalick and Fantoni (at a cost of about $8,800) will soon be reduced to a $499 interactive software program that will run on a PC, bringing all the benefits of Taguchi without requiring that a nerd be enclosed to make it work.

    The vanilla wafer recipe, however, will remain a secret.


    Now where have I seen THAT before? ;)
  • The reduced the amount of crap they sent by using intelligent marketing techniques (like targeting) and by increasing the quality of the ads and the product they were selling.

    Basically this whole "breakthrough" is the realization that you can only fool so many people so many times with junk.

    So although, this may reduce the amount of spam from more "legitimate" companies it won't make much of a dent in those with no marketing talent which is virtually every spammer.

    Ben
  • I think that the underlying force here is that Taguchi focuses on what consumers want rather than what the producers want. Cringely is, I bet, banking on the idea that spammers will either transform into non-offensive advertisers of some form or realize that they can't do what they want to do (spam for money) and utilize Taguchi at the same time.
  • be a good thing if it increases the quality of targeting. The more targeted a spam message is ...the less spam that sender sends out.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:16PM (#7064993)
    If the last paragraph reads like Esperanto to you, maybe that explains why mainly eggheads have been attracted to Taguchi.

    That "last paragraph" was the only paragraph in the article the really talked about how this super black magic miracle method works. The article sounds like it was written by an MBA salesman trying to sell a product he doesn't really understand.

  • I've always wondered whethere there is any evidence that the various methodologies bandied about as the greatest thing (such as Taguchi, QFM, TRIZ and the like) really do work. Does anyone have any links that point to an objective analysis of these approaches and what, if any, measurable benefit they can provide?

    Thanks for any help. I have an intro book on TRIZ and while it sounds kind of interesting, I'd like more evidence that these new-age approaches really are an improvement over standard brainstormi

  • by Neologic (48268) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:18PM (#7065021)
    a spam itself? The description of the Taguichi method and how amazing it is all sounded too good to be true. In reality, it sounds like an application of linear algebra to business. But the description- like reducing the time to develop a new sandwich to one month made me wonder if my spam filters would label it as spam.
  • What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?
    What could be worse, oh how about giving them free exposure on Slashdot. I can save you the time of RTFA, just target aol users.
  • Most EEs who have been around a while remember the article that Bob Pease of National Semiconductor wrote on the Taguchi optimization of a power supply. It can be found here [elecdesign.com].

    If Taguchi works as well on spam we can just about forget another spam control methods!

  • by Dolohov (114209) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:21PM (#7065045)
    We forget sometimes that advertising, when done right, plays a crucial information role in our economy. The quick and accurate dissemination of information is vital to keeping prices low and efficiency high -- not just advertising products to consumers, but to corporations, as well as advertising for jobs and soliciting services. (*ahem* Not those services)

    The problem with spam is that it is bad advertising, and advertisers have not yet really caught on about how much it infuriates their potential customer base. I think you'll find that companies really paying attention to what works will eventually de-emphasize spam in favor of less-intrusive methods.
    • The difference is not between good and bad advertisng, but between push and pull advertising. Push advertising, people offering goods and services pushing or broadcasting information unto hapless and unwilling customers, is generally inefficient and wasteful, and will continue to be more so as societies information overload increases. Pull advertising, in which the customer uses the internet or the phonebook or some other tool to solicit only the information they need from merchants, is the useful kind.
  • by esconsult1 (203878) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:24PM (#7065073) Homepage Journal
    I think /. was a little shortsighted as looking at this from just the spam perspective.

    As an advertiser in search engines and other mediums, this would be a great way for me in increase my conversion rate. With a tool like ConversionLogic Keyword Tracking [conversionlogic.com] one can now use the methods described, and accurately measure the worth of a search or affiliate campaign based on different versions of ad copy produced.

    But yes, spammers will be reading this with interest as well :-)

  • Liability? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brundlefly (189430) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:24PM (#7065076)

    If spam is illegal is certain jurisdictions, wouldn't sale of this book in those jurisdictions be akin to inciting criminal behavior? What would be the financial liabilities of this? (Obviously IANAL.)

    • Re:Liability? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ewhenn (647989)
      You can buy books that describe how you *could* do all sorts of illegal activities, ya know, for "educational" purposes only. How is this any different??
  • by MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:28PM (#7065106)
    1. Don't ever buy anything from SPAM no matter how attractive the offer is. You must not reward their behavior.
    2. Don't ever buy anything from telemarketers no matter how attractive the offer is. You must not reward their behavior.
    3. Don't ever buy anything from door-to-door salesmen now matter how attractive the offer is. You must not reward their behavior.
  • Pirated copies of Taguchi interactive software program that will run on a PC for only $99! And it'll also increase your penis size!
  • by Sunnan (466558) <sunnan@handgranat.org> on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:30PM (#7065126) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, yeah, all advertising is bad, spam is bad, commercials are bad (or so I think, YMMV).

    But I haven't really thought about the Taguchi method in non-lab settings before I read this article. How about applying it to user interface design? Gnome guys, are you listening?

    (Maybe then we would find something better than "tabs" implemented in every single app...)
    • It sounds like something that could work well. Not just with the interface design but also with the underlying features. Perhaps, even with elements of the software design itself.

      Someone should really explore this. Designing to spec's that really mean something rather than just throw in everything including the kitchen sink could speed up design & development, improve the robustness of the product, and bring it to release faster.
  • Taguchi, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wansu (846) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:30PM (#7065128)
    Bob Pease wrote a detailed refutation of a voltage
    regulator circuit design which was optimized with
    the Taguchi method and published in Electronic
    Design magazine in the late 80s. The resistance
    values in the circuit just looked fishy and his
    analysis revealed that the circuit would not work.
    The input voltage would track the output voltage.
    The author had made certain the performance was
    independent of the quality of the parts alright. A
    fair argument could be made that the author did
    not properly apply the Taguchi method. Bob's point was
    the output has to depend on something. In this case, it
    depended on a zener diode. The author thought he was
    accomplishing something by making the output
    independednt of the components. He didn't consider
    that the circuit wouldn't work then. So be very
    careful with this Taguchi stuff.
  • Spammers used to be chickenboners living in trailer parks. They couldn't spell, and hadn't found about about spell check yet. Now it's becoming a real problem.
  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Friday September 26, 2003 @12:57PM (#7065337)

    What could be worse than a method which increases the returns on spam?

    Plugging the book for free on Slashdot by pretending it's a news item.

  • by WebMasterJoe (253077) <joe@nospAm.joestoner.com> on Friday September 26, 2003 @01:00PM (#7065350) Homepage Journal
    I read through the article and I don't think it's reasonable to automatically assume this will lead to better spam. What if the most effective advertising rate is to not spam? Supposedly this Taguchi method rapidly takes thousands of variables into consideration and through a few experiments, comes up with the most effective method. If experimenters include the method of delivery as a variable, they may find that another technique works better than spam.

    From where I stand, I see the possibility that spam will decrease significantly. The Taguchi method could be the next big buzzword (or buzzphrase) and every spammer who wants to make more money (which would be all of them - why else would they sacrifice their ethics) might determine that there is some better method than bulk mailing to *@*.* with deceptive subject lines and random strings everywhere.

    And even if that doesn't happen, the end result would be spam that isn't quite such a nuisance. Something that we might not mind as much. And if we're going to keep getting spam, I'd rather it not be the kind that offends, insults and annoys us.
  • by sammy baby (14909) on Friday September 26, 2003 @01:03PM (#7065378) Journal
    ...I was sure that the story was about the Tamagotchi method, and was wondering out little digital "pets" could possibly help ad return rates.

    Then it hit me - what if all those little digital pets were WiFi enabled, and talking to each other? "Beep! Feed me! Beep! Go by a Ronco Turnip Twaddler!" Scary.
  • Spam as technology (Score:2, Interesting)

    by m0smithslash (641068)
    All the current evils of our lives like spam and virii are both technology and act as sources of new technology. Before I start, I hate both spam and worms, so don't spam [spamgourmet.com] me.

    But consider the worm. There is some fairly cool technology in there to get them to work right. Right now that technology is being used mostly for evil. In the future the technology may mature to the point where we will wonder how we lived without it. As an example, instead of a slashdot web site, there could be slashdot worms t

  • Maybe, just maybe, this technique can be used to improve spam filtering.
  • If you DID manage to increase the rate of return on spam, it would mean that the people receiving it are actually receiving messages they want. Or that the people who don't wish to receive spam are being hit with spam less often.

    Either of those are good things, if you ask me.
  • It wouldn't be spam .. so go on do this .. and get all these people who buy into spam as a means of advert to convert to a new method.. that might actually get their adverts to people who really want to buy it.

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_

Working...