Difference between revisions of "Cost of spam"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| − | The daily dose may seem petty, 1-2 minutes clicking delete in a whole day. Irritating but insignificant, like a few flies buzzing by, who cares. However, the real cost is grossly underrated for several reasons: | + | The daily dose may seem petty, 1-2 minutes clicking delete in a whole day. |
| + | Irritating but insignificant, like a few flies buzzing by, who cares. | ||
| + | However, the real cost is grossly underrated for several reasons: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Spam filters devour their share of the mailstream, so we only see the tip of the iceberg. | ||
| + | But each time you get a real email, 9 spam mails were sent but filtered out. | ||
| + | That number is unfortunately growing. And the growth is accelerating... | ||
| − | |||
The massive amounts sent also means that spam is something everyone gets, every day, year in year out. That's the other reason why the cost is invisible, we're not used to that many small parts being summed to such massive heights. | The massive amounts sent also means that spam is something everyone gets, every day, year in year out. That's the other reason why the cost is invisible, we're not used to that many small parts being summed to such massive heights. | ||
| − | |||
| − | I think both the personal and global view are unnecessarily extreme, so I'll suggest an example in the middle: The City. Not a major metropolis, nor a minor village, but a varied widespread average size city. Population could be 1.000.000 working people (plus relatives). | + | On a personal scale the cost seems too petty to sum, on a global scale the enormous sums no longer makes sense. But how do one grasp this invisible flood? I think both the personal and global view are unnecessarily extreme, so I'll suggest an example in the middle: The City. Not a major metropolis, nor a minor village, but a varied widespread average size city. Population could be 1.000.000 working people (plus relatives). |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | If each person wastes a minute a day deleting spam, then 1 million minutes are lost. | ||
| − | |||
If the loss of 1 minute is $1, then the city looses $1 million. Every day, every year. | If the loss of 1 minute is $1, then the city looses $1 million. Every day, every year. | ||
| + | |||
What could you buy for that much? Every day? Anyone any wishes..? | What could you buy for that much? Every day? Anyone any wishes..? | ||
| + | |||
PS: I should add that this calculation is a minimum estimation, as it doesn't include the cost of damages done by virus, spyware, phishing... | PS: I should add that this calculation is a minimum estimation, as it doesn't include the cost of damages done by virus, spyware, phishing... | ||
| Line 37: | Line 46: | ||
Some may argue that people only need to install a 100% efficient spamfilter, and then the problem is solved. However, the target is moving, evolving and mutating. No filter can get the last spam. Spamfilters also have a drawback; the more they eat, the more spam becomes invisible. Receive one email and 4 was filtered, but you never see them. If 99 was filtered out, you wouldn't see it either. Or think about it. But in the dark spam consumes a growing amount of the nets processing power. Making spam invisible only hides the symptoms, but leaves botnets, zombie-pc's and highjacked sites in the dark, evolving unseen. | Some may argue that people only need to install a 100% efficient spamfilter, and then the problem is solved. However, the target is moving, evolving and mutating. No filter can get the last spam. Spamfilters also have a drawback; the more they eat, the more spam becomes invisible. Receive one email and 4 was filtered, but you never see them. If 99 was filtered out, you wouldn't see it either. Or think about it. But in the dark spam consumes a growing amount of the nets processing power. Making spam invisible only hides the symptoms, but leaves botnets, zombie-pc's and highjacked sites in the dark, evolving unseen. | ||
| + | |||
Spam filters may stop spam from being received, but cannot stop it from being sent. A growing amount of bandwidth is drained in the background. Spammers enjoy free traffic since they are not paying. And the ISPs just pass the bill along. Cost of bandwidth is another case of insignificant parts being a larger sum: | Spam filters may stop spam from being received, but cannot stop it from being sent. A growing amount of bandwidth is drained in the background. Spammers enjoy free traffic since they are not paying. And the ISPs just pass the bill along. Cost of bandwidth is another case of insignificant parts being a larger sum: | ||
| Line 45: | Line 55: | ||
100.000.000.000 spam mail pr day (2007) | 100.000.000.000 spam mail pr day (2007) | ||
| + | |||
1 kb pr mail | 1 kb pr mail | ||
| + | |||
The cost of bandwidth $0.01 pr Kb in mail | The cost of bandwidth $0.01 pr Kb in mail | ||
| + | |||
The sum is then $1 million wasted each day! | The sum is then $1 million wasted each day! | ||
| + | |||
(That's $1 billion in less than 3 years...) | (That's $1 billion in less than 3 years...) | ||
| − | And the number is growing exponentially. | + | |
| + | And the number is growing exponentially... | ||
Revision as of 12:41, 19 September 2009
The true cost of spam
What is the true cost of spam?
The dark side of spam
How the net is drained daily
What is the true cost of spam? It cost a City a Million a Day...
The daily dose may seem petty, 1-2 minutes clicking delete in a whole day.
Irritating but insignificant, like a few flies buzzing by, who cares.
However, the real cost is grossly underrated for several reasons:
Spam filters devour their share of the mailstream, so we only see the tip of the iceberg.
But each time you get a real email, 9 spam mails were sent but filtered out.
That number is unfortunately growing. And the growth is accelerating...
The massive amounts sent also means that spam is something everyone gets, every day, year in year out. That's the other reason why the cost is invisible, we're not used to that many small parts being summed to such massive heights.
On a personal scale the cost seems too petty to sum, on a global scale the enormous sums no longer makes sense. But how do one grasp this invisible flood? I think both the personal and global view are unnecessarily extreme, so I'll suggest an example in the middle: The City. Not a major metropolis, nor a minor village, but a varied widespread average size city. Population could be 1.000.000 working people (plus relatives).
If each person wastes a minute a day deleting spam, then 1 million minutes are lost.
If the loss of 1 minute is $1, then the city looses $1 million. Every day, every year.
What could you buy for that much? Every day? Anyone any wishes..?
PS: I should add that this calculation is a minimum estimation, as it doesn't include the cost of damages done by virus, spyware, phishing...
The dark side of spam
Some may argue that people only need to install a 100% efficient spamfilter, and then the problem is solved. However, the target is moving, evolving and mutating. No filter can get the last spam. Spamfilters also have a drawback; the more they eat, the more spam becomes invisible. Receive one email and 4 was filtered, but you never see them. If 99 was filtered out, you wouldn't see it either. Or think about it. But in the dark spam consumes a growing amount of the nets processing power. Making spam invisible only hides the symptoms, but leaves botnets, zombie-pc's and highjacked sites in the dark, evolving unseen.
Spam filters may stop spam from being received, but cannot stop it from being sent. A growing amount of bandwidth is drained in the background. Spammers enjoy free traffic since they are not paying. And the ISPs just pass the bill along. Cost of bandwidth is another case of insignificant parts being a larger sum:
How the net is drained daily
100.000.000.000 spam mail pr day (2007)
1 kb pr mail
The cost of bandwidth $0.01 pr Kb in mail
The sum is then $1 million wasted each day!
(That's $1 billion in less than 3 years...)
And the number is growing exponentially...
