On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 08:39, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > So, I'm guessing the previous post (the one about "it's OK to have > different opinions") didn't register on your radar as it went by. > Here is another opinion or perspective whichever you prefer. > >You might have a way of dealing with it that differes from many, since > >implimenting the measures spam has reduced by a tremendous level, theres > >no denying the facts speak for themselves. > Yes you are right facts do speak for themsleves. > Fact: Last year, one of my customers received an email from a person > interested in her product. She had never met this person, and had no idea > that receiving mail from them would ever be important. However, that email > led to a sale of over $1M. > > Fact: My customer is convinced that spam is evil and wishes it could all be > made to go away, yet she does not EVER want domains or countries to be > blocked wholesale since that "customer service" could have cost her seven > figures in the name of saving her some time and traffic. > > Fact: The customer was located in Brazil, using a Yahoo! account. <grin> > Here are some more facts which do not rely on hypothetical or unverifiable claims from various sources: Spam substantially increases ISPs' costs, which are passed on to consumers. In 1997, America Online estimated that between 5% and 30% of its email server time at any given moment was exclusively dedicated to handling spam (http://content.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19971218S0007). Between $2-3 of a consumer's monthly Internet bill is for handling spam, according to the 1998 Washington State Commercial Electronic Messages Select Task Force Report (http://www.wa-state-resident.com/finalrpt.pdf). 7% of Internet users who switch ISPs do so because of spam. This translates to a loss by attrition of more then $250,000 per month for an ISP with 1 million subscribers. Reported by the Gartner Group (http://www.brightmail.com/pdfs/gartner_rebuilt.pdf) in 1999. Spam increases the Digital Divide. In its 1999 report, "Falling through the Net II: Defining the Digital Divide" (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration found that 16.8 percent of all households that own a computer do not access the Internet for reasons of cost -- a cost that is $2-3 higher because of spam. Rural email users pay more. Users who have few or no local choices in Internet service providers may further pay per-minute ISP and/or toll call fees to receive each piece of spam. Spam disproportionately affects disabled email users. For blind or sight-impaired users who employ a speech-synthesis device to read email, spam represents additional time delay in accessing information. For mobility-impaired users, deleting excess email and weeding out spam may be difficult or painful. Finally, spam decreases the utility of email-enabled text pagers used by deaf persons for immediate remote communications. Spam costs recipients 10 billion Euros (8 billion U.S.dollars) per year, worldwide. (2001) http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/studies/spam.htm 25% of spam is for "adult" (sex-related) products and services. (1999) http://www.brightmail.com/pdfs/gartner_rebuilt.pdf The two most common definitions of spam are "Unsolicited Bulk Email" (74%) and "Unsolicited Commercial Email" (72%).(1999) http://www.brightmail.com/pdfs/gartner_rebuilt.pdf 44% of survey respondents who have received spam have lodged a complaint (1999).83% of survey respondents stated an express dislike for spam. (1999) After access problems, price, and busy signals, Spam is the #1 reason that users switch ISPs. (1999) The most common targets for spam complaints: spam sender (64%), recipient's ISP (53%), sender's ISP (34%). (1999) 73% of survey respondents believe their own ISP should "ban or regulate" spam. (1999) http://www.brightmail.com/pdfs/gartner_rebuilt.pdf US$2-3 of a consumer's monthly ISP bill goes toward handling spam. (1998, 2000) http://www.wa-state-resident.com/finalrpt.pdf http://www.infoworld.com/articles/en/xml/00/01/10/000110enspam.xml The world's largest ISP estimated that 5-33% of its email server time is dedicated to handling spam. (1997) http://content.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19971218S0007 Walt Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal wrote: "[Spam] is a pathetic way to do business, and I think we need a tough federal law to curb it... The spammers are ruining the very use of e-mail for millions of people." (2001) http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/mailbox-20011206.html One estimate says that 50-75 percent of all spam has forged reply addresses. (1997) http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/bam/www/numbers.html#Internet A Forbes article reported that the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List blocked trash email going to about 20,000 ISPs, corporations and individuals with servers, or 40% of all email addresses. (2000) http://www.forbes.com/forbes/00/0918/6608230a.htm http://www.mail-abuse.org Ferris Research says that the average business email user receives three spam messages a day; that number is estimated to swell to 40 by 2004. The company also estimates that, in 2003, the average individual will waste 15 hours deleting email, compared to 2.2 hours in the year 2000. That will cost the average business in the future US$400 per inbox, compared to US$55 today. (2001) http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/04/spam.blocking.idg/index.html Jupiter Communications foresees a forty-fold increase in spam between 1999 and 2005, from 40 pieces to 1,600 pieces per person annually. (2000) http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/06/09/amend.spam.idg/index.html Spam costs businesses about US$500 per employee per year in personnel costs alone. (2001) http://www.silicon.com/bin/bladerunner?30REQEVENT=&REQAUTH=21046&14001REQSUB=REQINT1=49713 > To sum up: > > 1. Your point is that your measures work well in reducing spam. I > agree, and your customers agree. > Not well enough. Yet! > 2. My point is that no amount of spam reduction is worth the > possibility of missing that single $1,000,000 email. Wrong! Have a peek at the items listed above and do the math. While 1 million is a lot of money it is a short sighted and factually insignificant when one looks at the big picture in terms of what spam does to affect productivity, real financial loss, and social use of communication tools such as email. The intangibles are the key to understanding how spam affects us all. It is not mitigated by a "possibility" which we all know may, or more importantly, may not come to fruition. > > This second point leads me to conclude that, IN MY OPINION, your measures > are too drastic and not worth implementing. Too much cost and too little > benefit. My customers agree. > Spam disproportionately affects disabled email users. For blind or sight-impaired users who employ a speech-synthesis device to read email, spam represents additional time delay in accessing information. For mobility-impaired users, deleting excess email and weeding out spam may be difficult or painful. Finally, spam decreases the utility of email-enabled text pagers used by deaf persons for immediate remote communications. It also affects coporate types because it creates a diversion of time for it's employees which results in lost procuctivity, and given the very large amount of meterial included in spam which is sexual in nature can open up employers to lawsuits for NOT taking action to preserve a worker friendly, non-sexual environment. It affects us personally because it directly affects loss of control over their online privacy, computer and Internet connection. In addition, spam can dampen free speech on the Internet, as reported by The Center for Democracy and Technology's Ad Hoc Working Group on Unsolicited Commercial Email (http://www.cdt.org/spam): "The most dangerous, if least easily quantified cost, is the damage that unsolicited commercial email (UCE) can cause to the reputation of email... UCE can have a chilling effect on individuals' speech in that individuals may be reluctant to participate in online forums and Usenet groups, or may remove their email addresses from home pages for fear of getting their email addresses placed on mailing lists for UCE." That not only affects us personally but has profound implications for business too. > I know you don't agree. Fine. I'm just trying to show you that yes, two > different points of view _CAN_ exist on this issue. You are not "right" nor > is it possible to be "right", and I am not telling you that you are "wrong" > in any way either. We just think differently, and (surprise!) that's OK. > > Is that clearer now? > I believe there can be a "right" and a "wrong". You can have a different opinion all day long and I will suport it. However, when your difference of opinion helps fuel FUD and ultimately helps to preserve UCE or "spam" then one must realize that those who are stuck "paying" for it won't be happy with you OR the spammers. Ironically I visited your website simpaticus.com and it redirected to allaboutchoice.com and the browser title bar states "All About Choice". I find this ironic because I do not get to choose to receieve spam. Even more ironic is the Terms of Service Page http://www.allaboutchoice.com/tos.php which states in item #12 regarding spam/UCE that your company actually will: "During the investigation, All About Choice may restrict customer access to the network to prevent further violations." Yet you appear to disagree with people taking measures to prevent protecting themselves from spam or UCE by blocking or other related measures citing the possibility that one may recieve a business message worth 1 million. It is forced upon unsuspecting netizens and perpetuated by an inability to effectivly object to it and prevent further spam. This is not a flame. It is a firm assetion that facts do mean something. And frankly a message from a disposable yahoo/hotmail type account or any other spamming domain which MAY contaib a valid business message is like "betting on the come line"....it might happen...but the odds are NEVER in your favor that it will happen. But the fact that spam/UCE is measurable in REAL cost and that those REAL costs ARE paid for by someone other than the spammer. Prudent thought dictates that one minimize those REAL costs whenever possible. Scott
