"Bill Cunningham" <billcu@citynet.net> writes: > > I'll repeat my calculation. I'm receiving at least 55,000 spams a year > > at the rate they are arriving this month. I'm using automation to nuke > > most of them, but if I did not, at three seconds each that's over a > > work week every year devoted to killing that mail -- > > Is an annualized rate of 55,000 spams a year, sustainable for a > year? It is likely to be far worse for the full year, as that's just what the current levels are. The level rises very steadily with time, and I am almost certain that the level will have increased sufficiently by the end of the year to make the complete annual number much higher. And yes, I really do get 150 to 200 of the damned things a day, every day, week after week, the number slowly ratcheting upwards. My annualized figure was taken by conservatively using 150 rather than 200. Apparently there are people doing even worse than I am. There are also quite a number of people I know who are running at perhaps 30% or 50% of my rate, but of course, they need merely wait if nothing is done before they hit the rate I'm at. I am a bit unusual. I run a number of mailing lists and post a lot to the net. However, I'm just ahead of the curve. If things continue, in a few years, you will be where I am, almost regardless of where you are now. -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com -- "Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."