Eisenstadt's Analysis Of 8 Years' Worth Of Email

Hylton writes "Thought this might be of interest: Marc Eisenstadt's saved every email he's gotten over the past eight years, including spam, and run an analysis of it."

Comments

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

February 11, 2005
Eight years of email stats, pass 1Email This EntryPrint This Entry
Posted by Marc Eisenstadt

What's the reality behind the 'email overload' talk? Let's look at some numbers... personal numbers.

To kick things off, I've got a huge email archive. I started emailing in the early ArpaNet days, around 1972, and haven't stopped since. My archive has been extremely thorough for at least the past 12 years (and, in case you think I'm nuts for keeping all of these, my actual regret from a scientific/archive perspective is that I don't have the earlier ones too!). Why? Let's just say that one day I planned to do an analysis of it all... types of mails, social networks, the whole works. But things got a little out of hand.... (anyone lookin' for some data, give me a shout... but first read on)...

Most of this 'storage mania' was triggered by a casual comment in around 1992 or 1993 by Ron Baecker, of the University of Toronto, a longtime research colleague and acquaintance and someone whose work I have long admired and respected. Ron asked me, "given ultra-cheap storage and ultra-fast search, both clearly on their way, why would you ever need either to delete or indeed to accurately file/categorize your emails?"

OK, so as a little personal experiment, I decided to keep 'em, and to see what happened. The quick story is that migrating across machines, operating systems, and preferred email clients, plus being a bit cavalier about the whole thing, has meant that although all the emails are 'there' in various archive files, it takes a little work to get 'em all back in a harmonious form, that is with all headers intact and no duplicates (the main formats are Vax mails, Unix mails, Mac Eudora, PC Eudora, Outlook Express, and Outlook).

The longer story, with some data and preliminary analysis, begins like this:

Even though I haven't had the time or motivation thus far to put in the harmonization work required to get all the data in one format and with duplicates eliminated, I nevertheless thought that a little 'first pass' set of totals (with my estimate of their accuracy) would be interesting, and maybe even provide a little coarse empirical support for Stowe's "Just Say No To Email" campaign.

So I quickly eyeballed-and-tallied the most coherent of the archives, spanning eight years of emails, from January 1st 1997 to December 31st 2004. The totals are real enough, but the 'eyeballing' was needed to assess the approximate propotion of spam and duplication involved in the emails. A more detailed analysis later will enable me to do these more accurately. I've indicated my estimate of the margin for error in the third column, and my estimate for the percentage of spam received (and I mean real spam: i.e. either 'greedily-lookin-for-suckers' or 'low-down-mean-and-nasty spam', not conference announcements - you know what I'm talkin' about). For 2003, this number is precise, because I filtered off such spam using SpamAssassin, and counted them! 2004 spam numbers are an extrapolation, but the totals are accurate, as explained below. Here goes:

TABLE 1: Eisenstadt's 1997-2004 email totals
Year

Emails received Est. Error Est. Spam

1997 4320 20% 2%
1998 3996 20% 3%
1999 6821 10% 5%
2000 7580 5% 6%
2001 6125 5% 7%
2002 6497 5% 10%
2003 13092 1% 37.6%
2004 13889 1% 40%

2003 is the most accurate, because (unlike earlier years when I was changing clients and machines) I have all emails in one clean format and all spam preserved, auto-filtered by SpamAssassin into a folder that I look at only a few times a year, scanning rapidly for false rejections. Incidentally, that falsely rejected email rate appears to be roughly 1 in 5000: good enough for me! By 2004, although I kept all emails, I got fed up keeping the spam even for analysis purposes, and can't even be bothered to scan it, so stuff auto-filtered by SpamAssassin is now deleted without my looking at it - so the column 4 '40% spam' in the lower

Re:Indeed

[iced_773]

I should point out that you shouldn't respond to spam under ANY circumstances - it just verifies to the spammer that your address exists.

Re:Link seems to be down...

[Vario]

This is the google cache linked with slashcode: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:GshwWambHvEJ: www.corante.com/getreal/archives/2005/02/11/eight_ years_of_email_stats_pass_1.php

It still tries to access the original site, so it rather slow but you can read the article.

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

And also set your email client not to load images, or anything remote for that matter, off the net. They can just add a image.jpg?id=123456 and know that the email address in their db with the id of 123456 read their spam message.