[discuss] Another couple of items

Tue Jan 14 16:13:20 UTC 2014

In message 
<CAMzo+1a5Ei0dq0quAP=FTPaQoGH8paAaHc33JRyG0Yvr+H=gFg at mail.gmail.com>, at 
09:42:44 on Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> writes

>>  One alternative is to take actions to increase the costs of sending SPAM
>>
>> I don't think we have the time or energy to re-run the entire debate about
>> what might or might not be a good way to reduce Spam, but that is widely
>> understood not to be a solution.
>
>Some law enforcement agencies around the world have been very effective
>making it more difficult (and costly) to send SPAM.

I always thought the Japanese were ahead of the game here, but I see 
they are at about number 5 in the national league tables (USA top 
source, as usual).

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries/

>If you don't have the time or energy to participate on some debates and
>exchanges of ideas nobody is forcing you,

Frankly, after spending many years involved in the anti-spam community, 
I'm trying to give myself a bit of a rest from the topic.

>but in some operational areas it continues to be an open dialog and 
>exchange of ideas and techniques to further reduce the volume SPAM that 
>as reported by different sources has been in a steady decline over the 
>past few years.

The figures I've seen say it's "reducing" and is now 'only' about 70% of 
all email. But I'm sure it's being much more effectively targeted, so 
probably getting more dangerous all the time. I imagine that a trend 
towards instant messaging of various kinds might be reducing the overall 
amount of email (it is for me, anyway).
-- 
Roland Perry