Re: Removing the indent-string quote marker '>' in emails.
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 03:30:24PM EST, Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:39:51AM -0700, RobertHoltzman 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."
> It comprises a little over 90% of what hits my filters lately.
Assuredly, and we're paying for it no matter how smart our filters¹.
Unless you find a way to filter it at the source, before it gets out².
CJ
¹ My guess is that beyond smart, and all things equal, the more powerful
the filter, the higher the hardware requirements, and therefore the
energy bill.
² Probably more along the lines of a social rather than technical
perspective.. strangling the more visible spammers, perhaps?
Reply to: