[supercat]

Given how cheap it is to spam millions of e-mail addresses, even if a miniscule proportion of the recipients bite the bait, they probably get enough return on their investment to warrant it. IMHO.

It's easy to spam millions of people who don't go through any effort to avoid being spammed. Going after those who try to avoid spam is more difficult. Why make the extra effort to spam such people, when by their actions they've shown that they're not the target audience?

There are only two explanations I can figure:

• The spam business is a bubble, and the only people getting any value from it are those who sell spam-related tools or services. Eventually the market for such tools and services will try up and the bubble will burst on its own.
• The spam business is supported by one or more people or group who want to increase government restriction of the Internet.

Would you care to offer another explanation?

[AM2000]

Your explanations are possible. Your second one is particularly intriguing.

If I had to hypothesize, I'd say it's entirely possible that the difference in cost between spamming those who don't go to the effort of avoiding spam, and spamming those who do, is so little that it makes no real difference to the spammers.

Just a thought.

[Skywalk]

Good hypotheses.

As an AOLer, I would LOVE if those who spammed faced SOME kind of penalty.

What I hate is that I will block an address, then have to block all email from the junk mail domain name because they've changed the user portion of the return address. Then you find they route spam through other domains, and that the address you blocked isn't the real originating address.

I just don't like that they don't get the message when they are first blocked. ANd that the 'unsubscribe" message at the bottom will just get you more junk mail.