Re: Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:46:11 +0100
From: "Piet Beertema" <Piet.Beertema@localhost
To: "Anders Andersson" andersa@localhost
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Explaining spam to policians (was: test message)
> > One day, a staff member was unable to find a scooter because it
> > misplacing the scooter, he sent the letter to the internal staff
> > mailing list, which at Karolinska comprises around 3,000 people.
> > estimated that the total loss in productivity was roughly equal
> > to the cost of purchasing two new scooters.
> The big difference with spam is that, once you're a bit versed
> in dealing with it, it takes about half a second to qualify a
> message as spam or not.
Please tell me the *big* difference? On good days, I get arround 60 SPAMs
per day. On bad days I get much much more. So the example still holds.
The SPAM progression I can see in my mailbox seems to be according to the
law of Moore. So spending around 5 minutes today (it takes me arround 5
minutes to kill the daily spam, this makes 5 seconds/SPAM) means that I will
spend 24hrs a day(sic!) on SPAM in the year 2013. Nice, eh?
Note that I earn more than 1 Euro/Minute for my productive work, so SPAM
costs notable money, even today (you can have a nice lunch from it!).
If you don't think one can count money like this, see it this way: 5
minutes each day sums up to 1 day/year (very roughly). So I could have 1
day more spare time to do what I want per year. That is TODAY, and keep the
progression in mind.
Note that I today already plan countermeasures on SPAM, as in 2-3 years from
now I will reach the break even point, that is: Buying a fully automated
commercial mail verification system for $10000 which gets rid of *all* SPAM
is cheaper than continue to click away the SPAM.
This is the prove that SPAM - regardless of the type - costs a lot of money.
And even worse, it steals from your life.
Valentin `Tino´ Hilbig
1073 560D 7C71 7548 61F1
E5E1 D89E 4DF3 9557 4064