On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 03:30:24PM EST, Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:39:51AM -0700, RobertHoltzman wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:26:54AM -0500, Celejar wrote:
> > > Is this really true? Is the total amount of upstream bandwidth > > > that spam consumes really that expensive (eSpam in e-mail started > > > to become a problem when the Internet was opened up to the general > > > public in the mid-1990s. It grew exponentially over the following > > > years, and today comprises some 80 to 85% of all the email in the > > > world, by conservative estimate.[specially at the ISP wholesale > > > level) ? > > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic): > > "Spam in e-mail started to become a problem when the Internet was > > opened up to the general public in the mid-1990s. It grew > > exponentially over the following years, and today comprises some 80 > > to 85% of all the email in the world, by conservative estimate." > It comprises a little over 90% of what hits my filters lately. Assuredly, and we're paying for it no matter how smart our filters¹. Unless you find a way to filter it at the source, before it gets out². CJ ¹ My guess is that beyond smart, and all things equal, the more powerful the filter, the higher the hardware requirements, and therefore the energy bill. ² Probably more along the lines of a social rather than technical perspective.. strangling the more visible spammers, perhaps? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
