Slashdot Mirror
Jupiter Forecasts 50% Increase In Spam
Mr. Sketch writes "According to Yahoo, the amount of spam is expected to increase 50% in the next five years, meaning the average american will get over 3600 of them a year. The future of email is??"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
'cause they include clever spam filters.
I'm trying out POPfile (Naive Bayes text classifier and a POP3 proxy) these days, it's looking good so far.
-- From Denmark
The problem currently is that there's so many people who are doing a very good job at blocking / stopping most of the spam that the average joe or public official doesn't realize just how much spam is sent to his mailbox every day (or at least would be if it weren't for the anti-spammers).
What if for a period of time, maybe a week or a month, a day isn't long enough, the anti-spammers just quit. All of them. Let the spammers have an internet-wide orgy. Let people see how much of a problem this is - let the lawmakers make better spam laws, and then have the law enforcement stop them.
Blocking the spam is counter-productive, it only encourages the spammers to come up with better ideas on how to get it into your mailbox. The spam needs to be stopped at the source.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
There's no way in hell we're going to be that lucky. A 50% increase in 5 years would make me jump with joy.
The truth is it's increasing at a much faster rate than that. Recent research has shown that it's going up about 400% per year!!! And my personal email account verifies that sort of increase.
I suspect Jupiter is going to be eating its own words. In 5 years I suspect we'll be seeing perhaps 50 times more spam, not 50% more.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Nice idea but very difficult to implement. The problem is not the protocol. It's the content. No matter how secure a protocol is, a pinhead can always use it to send ads. It just arrived through a "secure" route.
I guess the best way is to slow down e-mail. That way it would take days to send a million messages. This would hurt mailinglists but exceptions could of course be made. Let certain known behaving servers send e-mail faster. That way you have to earn the right to send e-mail fast.
People shouldn't have to spend their time dealing with spam. Why should I have to? Why should I have to get multiple e-mail addresses because of spam? Why should my employer have to spend lots of money and resources on fighting spam, when it could have been spent elsewhere to improve performance rather than trying to prevent performance from deteriorating because of spam?
How does spam cripple e-mail communication, you ask? Again, you said it yourself. People have to start hiding their e-mail address. It will be harder to find a contact address to get in touch with them.
You are talking about spreading FUD. At the same time, you kind of contradict yourself by showing that yes, e-mail addresses can become unusable because of spam and yes, spam can cripple e-mail communication.
So where's the FUD? Spam is a serious problem to many, and you, as someone else I responded to, don't seem to understand this. You only seem to be able to see it from your own point of view. Maybe spam doesn't bother you. Well, I can inform you that it does bother me, my friends and my employer. A lot. It costs us money. It costs us time. This is not "gloom and FUD", it is reality.
Clever signature text goes here.
I agree that it's crazy that .0001% actually purchase something, then they think it's a success and spam even more.
.aol or .msn accounts anyway (and if you have time, those get sent to abuse@aol, etc. -not that they'll do anything, but it's good to annoy them) Overall, after a few weeks of fighting back, my spam has been reduced greatly.
But what I really can't stand is when tech people run around and say "never, ever respond to spam, or try to opt out. You will only get more once they realize your email address is good." This is just BS. It can be confusing to explain the best way to remove spam - learning to decipher legitmate companies (Buy.com, Hickory Farms, Citi Bank) from the viagra ads, but you have to try. The legit ones will truly remove you when asked - so that's done. The ones with broken links and return addresses that go nowhere get filtered - (they can't verify squat because you couldn't reply anyway). And for some of the porn that have either web links or reply requests, just try them. It's a pain to keep track of those you reply to then check to see if they come back, but if they do, that's when you type "remove me from your list and any other list connected to you or I will forward this message to my state's attorney general". I've done this a couple of times, and it's like a big swoosh sound as the spam gets sucked off of my computer. Those few viagra and hot teen things that come to me I just delete. These are mostly from fake
Ironically, out of all of the articles and how-to's I have read, very few explain how to try to opt out. The National Enquirer, of all rags, actually had a very good article on spam and included opt out instructions that pretty much follow my method - when to do it, when to not bother. They have also had good articles on keeping kids safe online, identity theft, alerts on kids modeling sites that border on child pron - who would have guessed to find decent tech stuff there?