Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SPAM

   

   Greg, Dec 29th, 2003 @ 6:39am

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

   

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

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

   

   Greg, Dec 29th, 2003 @ 9:59am

   
   

   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. ;)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

   

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

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Unwanted e-mail does not neccessarily equal SP

   

   Dave Cotovsky, Dec 29th, 2003 @ 6:46pm

   
   

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

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

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

   

   Dave Cotovsky, Dec 29th, 2003 @ 6:57pm

   
   

   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...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   I fixed my spam problem...

   

   Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 2003 @ 11:31pm

   
   

   ...and gained an extra 3 hours a day.
   
   I stopped reading e-mail.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

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

   

   David Wertheimer, Dec 30th, 2003 @ 6:52am

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   online chess

   

   chess, Feb 22nd, 2004 @ 1:00pm

   
   

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

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment