<CF_DevilsAdvocate>
I am definitely NOT a spam supporter. But we did do a little test in the
office this morning.
We looked to see how long it took someone to open, scan and delete 20 spam
messages.
We then handed them a stack of mail that came in, with catalogs, sealed
letters, post cards,
etc., all unsolicited advertising. It took three times longer to open,
read and throw out the
physical mail. Also, we weighed it on the postal scale, and it was over 2
pounds of paper.
And there was only 1 catalog today. Some days we receive 3-4. That's 500
pounds
of paper a year for that one person ending up in the garbage (recycle bin).
As far as the argument over "cost" of spam, I would say it is is almost
nill. You already own the
mail servers and pay for the bandwidth. If that 10% referred to actually
maxes out your
bandwidth and you have to get another T1 to accommodate it, you don't have
enough bandwidth
to begin with (no one runs at 90% capacity, but normally you pay based on
capacity, not usage
<yes, I know, a few people have demand contracts with their providers> ).
Also, isn't providing email service part of the service provided to
clients? How can we
complain about cost if they receive 10 real emails and 5 spams,
but not complain if they receive 400 "real" emails?
Don't get me wrong - I don't like SPAM. But, as a service provider:
1. I'm not comfortable playing big-brother,
2. I know that if email is sent to me, I don't want my ISP / provider
deciding which
emails I can or cannot see,
3. No email filter is perfect and will delete some valid mail (which can
really be a problem), and
4. I'm really surprised the environmentalists never got behind the
"polution free" aspects of spam.
And Scott, I'm definitely not attacking you, but...
>Imagine if people volunteered an extra 800,000 hours of their time a year
>to good causes?
Well, you could say the same of eliminating traffic jams, increasing the
speed limit,
or anything else that would add seconds to people's days, that, when added
up across 250 million
people, makes big numbers.
Assuming your numbers are right:
> With 18 billions spams sent a year, and an estimate of 4 seconds to
> determine that an E-mail is spam and delete it, you would need over
> 6,000 people working full time to delete all the spam that is sent in a
year.
That's about 180 spams per person per year. It would take them about
3 seconds to download and 2 seconds to delete each, or around 900 seconds
(or 15 minutes per year). In contrast, my secretary spends about 10 minutes
a day (or 2,500 minutes per year) sorting through our physical mail,
opening and
scanning the junk mail, and disposing of it (which, even when recycled, is
a source
of pollution, based on the pollution involved in cutting down the trees,
factories milling the trees, paper factories producing paper, dye companies
producing the ink,
blah blah blah)
Assuming your numbers (18B spams) are low, and I would bet they are - I'm
sure I receive that many myself - it still only takes me a few minutes to
delete
30 or 40 messages.
The solution?
I say if someone isn't in shouting range, don't bother with them. Cut
those cable
lines, go talk to your neighbor (do you even know his/her name) and have a
beer... : )
As for "blacklist not the answer", last I understood, blacklists
are illegal under federal law. The fact that people voluntarily use the
black list
in their decision making policy (an argument I have seen elsewhere) is
absolutely
irrelevant to the fact that it is illegal. ALL black lists are used by
people who want
to use them. The fact that you want to use them to ban customers,
rate people, etc... doesn't make them illegal. Their existence makes them
illegal.
The only reason credit reporting is allowed (because, in a sense, it is a
form of black list)
is that they must be created following strict federal and state guidelines,
including
among other things, some sort of appeals process for negative items AND a
notice
anytime that your "black list" / "credit report" is used against you.
Now let me go call and order a coffee. Oh damn... I cut the lines... : )
</cf_DevilsAdvocate>
At 08:41 AM 6/5/2001, you wrote:
>>I can only speak for myself but I like to make my own choices. Spam is a
>>nuisance but all I have to do is hit delete and it's gone
>
>With 18 billions spams sent a year, and an estimate of 4 seconds to
>determine that an E-mail is spam and delete it, you would need over 6,000
>people working full time to delete all the spam that is sent in a year.
>
>Imagine if people volunteered an extra 800,000 hours of their time a year
>to good causes?
>
>>It is fundamentally wrong for somebody other than a mail recipient to decide
>>whether the mail recipient should or shouldn't receive an email.
>
>Yes. But it is also fundamentally wrong for someone to make you pay to
>read their message, without your permission. If just 10% of the mail that
>you receive is spam, that means that about 10% of the costs associated
>with E-mail (cost of installing and maintaining the mail server,
>bandwidth, etc.) is spent to allow those spammers to spam you. You are
>paying the spammer to send you mail.
>
>It's what is called "The lesser of two evils". Each person needs to
>decide for himself which he considers worse.
>
> -Scott
>
>Declude: Anti-virus, Anti-spam and Anti-hijacking solutions for
>IMail. http://www.declude.com
>
>
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be
>removed from this list.
>
>An Archive of this list is available at:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
