Spam Costing An Hour A Day?

from the ouch dept

After just doing my once every few days scan of my spam filters to make sure nothing legitimate was caught, I realized that spam seems to be increasing at quite a rapid clip lately. However, my filtering system is working well enough that it's not a huge waste of time right now. A new study in the UK, though, has found that workers can spend up to an hour a day cleaning out their in-boxes. As bad a problem as spam is, I'm curious what these people are doing that it takes them so long to deal with their spam. It sounds like this "study", though, is simply asking business owners how much they thought their staff wasted on spam - so the one hour number is probably exaggerated.
Hide this

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


  • identicon
    Greg, 29 Dec 2003 @ 6:39am

    Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SPAM

    I have to disagree with the use of the term SPAM in your post entitled "Spam Costing An Hour A Day?". The BBC's article nor the report never use the term Spam. Instead they choose to use the broader term junk e-mail because in fact the study refers to a variety of different "unwanted" messages including personal messages between employees, not just "spam". Sorry to be so semantic about this, but I think we need to be careful when we use the term spam because by definition it generally refers to unsolicited commercial e-mail, not personal messages.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 29 Dec 2003 @ 8:25am

      Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

      Actually, we've discussed this before, and the common definition of spam is considered to be "any email I don't want" - even if it's from friends, families, or associates. Most people don't really distinguish. If it's email they don't want, they call it spam.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Greg, 29 Dec 2003 @ 9:59am

        Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

        Agreed about the common definition as you suggest, but what I'm concerened about is when the legal definition gets clouded because of what society regards as the "common" definition.

        When soon to be ex-spouses start filing lawsuits against each other for spamming under federal spam laws it will be a dark day. ;)

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike (profile), 29 Dec 2003 @ 10:04am

          Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

          When soon to be ex-spouses start filing lawsuits against each other for spamming under federal spam laws it will be a dark day. ;)

          Ha! I agree... but it's also why I think any legal definition of spam is going to run into problems.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dave Cotovsky, 29 Dec 2003 @ 6:46pm

      Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

      Spam is not semantics: it is all uninvited advertising and mischief sent to your mailbox.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dave Cotovsky, 29 Dec 2003 @ 6:57pm

    An Hour For Spam? You must be reading it all...

    If you install a good anti-spam program that captures, previews, and classifies your emails before downloading, you could skim through hundreds of messages (or garbage) in seconds. If you want to read the fine messages about Viagra and Nigerian schemes, it could very well take hours. Maybe you're bored with work, so you embrace a diversion...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David Wertheimer, 30 Dec 2003 @ 6:52am

      Re: An Hour For Spam? You must be reading it all..

      I have a good spam-catching program but it only does so much. Lately a good 50-plus emails a day have been slipping through, ahead of the filters, meaning I have to wade through it all. More importantly, I check email during the day with mail2web, which doesn't have filtering, which means I go scan-check-scan-check and delete messages twice an hour, all day long. An hour a day sounds exaggerated but not impossible.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2003 @ 11:31pm

    I fixed my spam problem...

    ...and gained an extra 3 hours a day.

    I stopped reading e-mail.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    chess, 22 Feb 2004 @ 1:00pm

    online chess

    Oh, yeah!
    And I'd rather be playing chess online on online chess !

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.