[Scspamcop] Re: low importance - anyone know what this spammer is peddling?

[Pop]

Mike Easter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Those are some psychological considerations to be gained from
> discussing this spam.

An important factor you left out; the newcomer to e-mail, and especially the 
young and older new users.
  These days, those seem to be prime targets and, those spammed not knowing 
any better, either respond to, try to help the spammer get the message to 
the right place, let them know they reached the wrong person, all kinds of 
things.
   They learn slowly, don't know how to get up to date on the subject, and 
what they do learn is always partial and usually empirical, simply because 
there are multiple layers to the problem of spam and "bad" web sites.  I've 
found some still "opting out" of spams even after more than a year or so. 
I'm sure anyone else here who mingles with the public has the same opinions.

That leads up to:  Education.  Spam and scam education is still abysmally 
absent in 99% of the sources it -could- come from.
   I've also seen a couple of computers come so well pre-equipped for spam 
detection that the user had absolutely NO idea what's going on, or even why 
they have those "extra" mailboxes.  One in particular couldn't figure out 
why Aunt Millie never responded to their e-mails and got way bent out of 
shape at her.  This was a couple years ago now.  She was a Comcast customer; 
nuff said.
   And THEN, not too long after convincing a couple people to not believe 
99% of what they get in unsolicited emails, also started not believing me, 
because I used a different address (same ISP but different user).  They were 
convinced it was spam<g>!

Many will still say there's nothing you can do about it.  And that's wrong. 
Education is over half the answer and it's NOT happening for the newbie or 
uninitiated, in general.

My two cents, 1987 dollars

Pop`