Spam Takes Up 10% Of Your Time
from the costly-enough,-yet? dept
A new study in the UK shows that dealing with spam costs employees approximately 10% of their working day. Maybe I just don't get that much spam (though it certainly feels like I do), but 10% seems a tad excessive. I'd be the first to agree that spammers deserve (at least) lifetime jail sentences, but how could it take that long to simply delete spam? While we're on the subject of spam, I've been hearing more and more about spam whitelist solutions where you only let people you "approve" to send you email. I have some reservations about whitelists (mostly because I don't think it's fair to inconvenience legitimate people who want to email me), but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has been using them successfully.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
SpamNet
Note, I have no association with CloudMark. I've been looking for anit-spam tools for at least a year and this is the only one I've found to be useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SpamNet
As soon as they get a client for any other non-ms software, I'll switch to it so I can use it (I'm using Pegasus Mail right now which is awesome, I wish they had a plug in for it....or let some programmer submit one).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SpamNet
Yeah, I've been hearing good things about CloudMark, but I don't use Outlook, so that rules out that idea, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Interesting. The thing I'm really wondering about, though, is how people react to whitelists that require them to "apply" or "respond" in some way to be included on the whitelist - unlike your solution which puts the burden entirely on you.
I like some of the whitelist idea, but I don't want to annoy people who happen to email me, and aren't on the whitelist - or friends who have mulitple email addresses, or suddenly get a new email address, or who knows what else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I don't think I'd be real annoyed if my first email to you required some sort of reply to confirm I am a real person sending email. If I had to do it every time I'd get annoyed quick! My mother uses privacy guard on her phone. Non-approved callers are automatically sent to voice mail without the phone ever ringing. Sort of the same idea.
A compromise that might work and keep your inbox sane is something that would only download "approved" mail and leave the rest on the server, to be automatically deleted after it sits there 7 days. That would allow the user time to check the server spam pile a couple of times a week for mail that should have come through. I think Spamcop may work like that. And I'm pretty sure I could write a Pocomail mail script (it has a proprietary scripting language) to do it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]