Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crazy Stats on Spam

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the if-only-that-was-it dept.

gtaylor writes "An article in the Korea Times says that market research firm Emforce has established that South Korean internet users average about 1600 pieces of spam annually, summing to around 39 billion pieces of spam per year. According to the same story, Americans receive about 2500 pieces of spam per year." I figured that I get somewhere around 30-40,000 pieces of spam annually. Lucky me... I get *this* statistic to be on the other side of the bell curve :)

14 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. fsp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    first spam post

  2. hmm... by arson1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the email said it was an exclusive deal just for me!

    --


    --
    Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
  3. spread the word by mz001b · · Score: 2, Funny

    To get the word out on how big of a problem spam is, the paper mass mailed the article to all users with a .edu, .com, or .org e-mail address.

  4. It must work on someone. by Xenopax · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have to figure that is the average person is receiving 2500 spam emails a year, then the spammers must be getting enough feedback to make it worthwhile. If you think about it, you don't need a high rate, or even moderate rate, of responses from mass mailings since a small percentage could cover your spamming costs. What we need to do is find the small percentage that is responding to this mail and whack them over the head, otherwise it will never end.

    1. Re:It must work on someone. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think the normal phrase is:

      "There's a sucker born every minute."
      The real point is that we don't want people to become suckers- the law is supposed to protect them to some extent.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:It must work on someone. by gus+goose · · Score: 5, Funny
      If a fool is born every minute, and there are (according to the CIA) 21.37 births per 1000 people, and (according to the US Census) there are about 6.1billion people, then there are 130Mil. births per year, or about 250 births per minute. Since one of these is a fool (and I think that is very low), then about 0.4% of the population are fools. Thus, if only fools respond to spam, then you only need to send 250 spam to get one response. Assuming that fools are less computer literate (proportionally few fools have e-mail), then you would need to send more to get a response, but not by much.

      On the other hand, in the past there were fewer births per minute, and thus there were proportionally more fools. This improves the spammer's hit rate.

      So, to answer your question, you get about 1 in 250 'hits' for spam.

      gus

      --
      .. if only.
  5. I just forwad all my spam to... by DrJohnnie · · Score: 1, Funny

    I just forwad all my spam to...

    root@localhost

    That'll show'em...

  6. Been reading too much spam. by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, I've been reading so much spam latly, that I honestly read the headline as, "Crazy Sluts on Spam" at first!

  7. my only question... by mrroot · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is about the penis enlargement spam.

    I mean, how did they know to send it to me?

    --
    I Heart Sorting Networks
  8. Re:Interesting survey by flacco · · Score: 5, Funny
    If they were typing randomly odds are one of them should have produced the next Hamlet by now.

    And they would have titled it: "Spamlet".

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  9. Re:Ofcourse the numbers are so big... by flacco · · Score: 4, Funny
    Finally, millions of people have a hotmail account. And there, they forget to point out that they don't want to be listed in the so-called White Pages, a main source for spammers.

    Don't you mean "Microsoft Preferred Retailing Associates"?

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  10. Marketing analysis by Proaxiom · · Score: 5, Funny
    I read something once about advertisers and marketers trying to build lists of people according to their known interests so advertising can be more cost-effective.

    Based on the e-mails I get, it would seem the advertising community has me pegged as a debt-ridden pervert with a small unit, sexual dysfunction, no education, and a penchant for get rich quick schemes.

    I wonder how they know that. I must be an open book.

  11. Re:Hey, let's build a prison just for them by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Yeah, make them read their own spam mail once for each person they sent it to. Or let's say twice. There has to be some punishment involved. ;-)

    1) Jail spammer in special spammer's prison.
    2) Give spammer an email address.
    3) Publish spammer's address on USENET, preferably in an MLM or pr0n newsgroup.
    4) Mail spammer, three times a day, an email message telling him his meal is ready, which he can print out to requisition his meal.
    5) Deny spammer the use of filtering tools. If the spammer starves to death because he can't find his meal tickets among the spam, that's his problem.

    I mean, why should he need a filter for his mail? Every spammer I've talked to - from trailer-trash to DMA executive - says it's easy to Just Hit Delete, right? It only takes a few seconds a day!

    And I'm sure there are so many interesting offers in his mailbox, if he's not interested, he can always Just Hit Delete, right?

    Ah, what I wouldn't give to be a warden in such a prison.

  12. Naw by waldoj · · Score: 2, Funny

    What I think would be an interesting addition to this would be to look at how much spam finds it's way onto newsgroups and weblogs such as this. My guess would be several orders of magnitude more, quite a waste of time and energy.

    Oh, no, very little.

    And you'll get absolutely none if you act now and buy my new SlashdotSpamBeGone, for just $9.95.

    -Waldo Jaquith