"Bill Cunningham" <billcu(_at_)citynet(_dot_)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(_at_)piermont(_dot_)com
--
"Ask not what your country can force other people to do for you..."