internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
Re: C/R system math [kook!] - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
- From: Sil Greene <Sil_greene AT unc.edu>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: C/R system math [kook!] - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:31:26 -0500 (EST)
Reported 03.11.20 12:26 from Tanner Lovelace:
.:Jeremy Portzer wrote:
.:
.:> Except that 1% of one million is 10,000, not 100,000. But a spam could
.:> be sent out to 10 million people in your scenario to result in 100,000
.:> C-R responses.
.:
.:Doh! You're right. It's been a busy day. I would still think, however,
.:that sending out a spam to 10,000,000 addresses is probably within
.:the bounds of reason.
Hey, what's an order of magnitude between friends?
--
"If you put your supper dish to your ears you can hear the sounds
of a restaurant." --Snoopy (Charles Schultz 02-12-2000 RIP)
Sil_Greene AT unc.edu
-
Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS
, (continued)
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/19/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Michael D. Thomas, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- C/R system math - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Jeremy Portzer, 11/20/2003
- Re: C/R system math - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: C/R system math [kook!] - Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Sil Greene, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Michael D. Thomas, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Ian Meyer, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Sil Greene, 11/20/2003
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, K. Jo Garner, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Steven Champeon, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tanner Lovelace, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Sil Greene, 11/20/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] [Tech] SPAM the SPAMMERS, Alan MacHett, 11/19/2003
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: SPAM the SPAMMERS, Tarus Balog, 11/20/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.