agsteele Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 The BBC is, today, carrying a report which claims that almost 93% of all Email is spam at present. In the closing months of 2006 spam volumes jumped enormously. According to e-mail filtering firm Postini, spam volumes increased by 73% in the three months to December. "92.6% of all e-mail messages are spam," said Dan Druker, spokesman for Postini. "That's the highest it's ever been." I'm wondering if that chimes with our experiences here? Seems a little high to me although my figure runs in the upper 80 per-cent region. Andrew Full report at www.bbc.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbear Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 I suppose only email system administrators can really quantify this as from the user perspective I guess it all depends on how much you use email in any one account in the first place & what spam filtering is in place. The amount of spam an account gets in my experience is a 'rising constant', (I know that's a contradiction in terms, but you know what I mean...). Some accounts I hardly use at all for email purposes any more because of their unreliability & spam, so the spam in those is running at virtually 100%. Others I use infrequently for one or two messages a day & the spam in those is at about 99%, whereas the ones I use most frequently for email and get the least spam are probably running at about 70-80% The BBC figure rings pretty true to me, perhaps even on the low side as I am not a prolific user of email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooster Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 The amount of spam an account gets in my experience is a 'rising constant', (I know that's a contradiction in terms, but you know what I mean...). Accelerating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbear Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 Accelerating? That's the word.... [g=the acceleration due to greed=32 spams per day²] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooster Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 bobear; Thirty-two per day2 would be according to the English System I presume; which is peculiar because nobody in the Commonwealth uses it anymore… only the US. Don’t get me wrong; I like the English system. There is something human-friendly about it; something organic and comfortable. In fact, in my “Living Will†I have a requisite that if I ever get killed in a car accident, I want it reported and recorded in miles per hour and not k/p/h no matter how the speedometer is calibrated. I’m still not totally convinced you can go fast enough in kilometers an hour to actually hurt yourself; but maybe that’s just me. And if anybody tries to bury me 1.8288 m. under the turf instead of 6 feet; well… I’m as like to come back and make them do it over so’s to satisfy. However; a lot of things do seem to satisfy in the metric system better than the post-Assyrian conventions. Case in point: we seem to be touching upon something we might call “The Universal Law of Depravitation†as it describes spam and the ‘nature’ of spammers. F = G [m1m2/r2] Where: F = the Depravitational Force G = 6.6726 x 10-11 Nï€ m2 / kg2 m = mass as defined as resistance to change of moral position which, although subjective, can be disambiguated and quantified using “Hedonistic Calculus†as per J. Bentham. r = degree(s) of separation or ‘deviance’ between the centres of moral mass. It’s a novel formula. Too bad it doesn’t seem to work for anything else in nature; needs more work, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.