The problem as I've noted elsewhere is the abusers were adversely affecting others. If I could have just ignored them as an annoyance, I'd have been with that.

The problem as I've noted elsewhere is the abusers were adversely affecting others. If I could have just ignored them as an annoyance, I'd have been with that. But that's sort of a total side comment. The point was in no situation did Mailinator users ever become customers but they still were a significant resource drain. As for the conversion rate, it was a positive outcome. I probably should have been clearer that Mailinator users weren't factored into the calculation any more than any other widespread source of spam would have been. Strictly speaking, removing them increased conversion rate because a whole bunch of sign-ups with 0% conversion went away. My point was removing the Mailinator traffic, all other sources continued to convert at nearly the same rate and revenue didn't drop because Mailinator traffic truly wasn't converting anyway. I'm willing to accept we just had an absolutely terrible business with an absolutely terrible business model and an absolutely terrible product. But if that's the case, why would so many people come from Mailinator and repeatedly use it?