On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:39:51 -0700 RobertHoltzman <hol...@cox.net> 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." I understand that the vast majority of email is spam, but IIUC, the vast majority of traffic (by bytes) on the 'net is video and other non-text content. The bandwidth consumed by spam is probably a drop in the bucket compared to that used by Youtube, Bittorrent, Hulu, etc. Celejar -- foffl.sourceforge.net - Feeds OFFLine, an offline RSS/Atom aggregator mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
