CAN-SPAM One Year Later?
BigPoppaT asks: "Computerworld has an article reviewing the effectiveness of CAN-SPAM one year after it passed. In the article several anti-spam companies cite spam as a huge (and increasing) percentage of the total e-mail load. Most state that it is more than 50%, and some are saying as much as 75%. (This matches what I see in other articles on the subject.) Are these figures reasonable? I do not work for an ISP or maintain a mail server, but speaking as an end-user, I do not have anywhere near this much spam - more like 5 to 10 items a week (out of a few hundred messages). This is in my personal email - I do not recall ever receiving any spam in my work inbox. If the numbers above are reasonable, I wonder why I get so little spam? I am on a number of mailing lists, and have purchased things online, so it is not as if I have gone too far out of the way to hide my email address. I am not complaining, mind you, I just think it would be useful for the Slashdot readers who deal with this in an administrative capacity to explain it to the rest of us. Are the spam numbers being inflated by these anti-spam groups as a marketing tool? (This is not a rhetorical question - I really am not in a position to evaluate this, so those who know, please fill the rest of us in.)"
By playing around with permutations of my email address, I find that a large chunk comes from infected colleagues' and students' computers. Relatively little comes from web crawlers. I also get a burst at around 8:00-8:15 when the staff members turn their machines on, and another burst a little later as faculty drift in. During the holidays, the rate goes way down.
The "expert" estimates on spam percentages do vary. But one thing seems pretty clear. CAN-SPAM hasn't perceptibly reduced the flow of junk email since it went into effect 1/1/2004. That's why I have suggested that Congress seize a simple way to put some teeth into the law. Give U.S. citizens a right to private action. Why save the privilege of suing spammers just for ISPs, attorneys general, and the FTC?