Canadian Spam Levels - Up? Down? You Be the Judge

spamfighter writes "Survey firm Ipsos-Reid has taken the interesting stance that spam to Canadians has been attenuated by 20% because of the federal privacy law PIPEDA which is so fearsome in nature that is scares off even the biggest- baddest spammers in other countries. CAUCE Canada has their doubts."

Comments

law and filters

[dirvish]

They also contribute the decrease to an increased use of spam filters by individuals and businesses: "New privacy laws and the use of spam filters by individuals and Internet providers helped lower the amount of unsolicited e-mail to 49 per cent of all electronic mail, down from 68 per cent in 2003." So, there might be just as much spam being sent...Canadians just aren't seeing as much because they are using filters.

Re:law and filters

[rs79]

The "average" Jane and John Doe is not a great metric; many ISP's do a reasonable job of spam filtering. Try an unfiltered box and look at traffic patters for a year for an accurate measurement. Users perceptions are not a reliable indication.

I'm in Canada and my filters are pretty simple. Spam was down a bit after xmas, but in the last two weeks it's about doubled. Again.

I get more than I did a year ago.

So, no, I would not by any stretch say spam is down. But I am getting much more efficient at deleteing it. Practice makes perfect and all that.

Some of my email addresses are 20 years old now. I probably get more than my share.

Re:law and filters

[kent_eh]

attribute the decrease to an increased use of spam filters by individuals and businesses

That's the answer I would offer as well.

The major ISPs are offering spam filtering at the server, so the end user never sees 98% of it (unless they disable the filtering).

My ISP is Shaw, and they have a (no extra fee) filter that users can configure from a web page. Either no filtering, identify spam and tag it,but allow download, or auto-delete the spam as it arrives.

When it was first ofered, I ran with the "tag-and-keep" option for a couple of months, and didn't notice any false positives. I've since switched to the "kill-on-the-server" oprion, and only see 4-5 spams a week.

I have heard that Sympatico and Rogers also offer similar filtering. Gmail and Yahoo have filters.

If the users aren't seeing the spam, "obviously" the problem is decreasing...

... no, try again.

[meisenst]

Speaking solely as a Canadian citizen, I get more spam today than I ever have in the past. This has nothing to do with the propagation (or lack thereof) of any law, but more the fact that my email address (or one of my email addresses, many of which forward) has been out on the Internet in lists and such for years now.

While the lists propagate, so will the spam. One of these days, whatever list(s) I am on may stop circulating, but I'm not holding my breath.

Down for me

[khendron]

I Am Canadian, and I can report that my spam at work has decreased significantly. The amount of spam I received peaked at about 200 per day a couple months ago, and then over a period of about 4 weeks dropped to to less than 100 per day.

I don't know why. It's not being blocked by our servers because the spam filter at work only tags spam, it doesn't block it.

Re:BIAASAAAACH

[templest]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, 60% of Toronto's trash goes to Michigan. Who's the dumpster now?
Thankyou for reading, go ahead and mod me down now. -1 Flamebait + -1 Troll = +1 Banned

Re:Story of Deep Well

[back_pages]

As your other reply indicates, it appears that the number is less than 50%.

Ref I found

I agree entirely with your sentiment about Slashdot, however. I used to think it was a great forum where you could find expert opinions on all sorts of technology and science, but now that I'm a few years further down the path to being an expert myself, I recognize that there's practically nothing of value here. I continue to read it primarily out of habit.

Re:Story of Deep Well

[sfjoe]

The war on drugs analogy doesnt work as it essentially targets 99% of the population at one time or the other.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Study after study has shown that the most effective deterrent to crime is not tougher penalties but a higher likelihood of being caught. So many people do drugs, sex and gambling that it is nearly impossible to catch even a reasonably large percentage of the "criminals".
It remains to be seen if spammers face a high likelihood of being caught.