Cost of spam - Revision history

Bob Zenith at 00:31, 2 May 2010

2010-05-02T00:31:14Z

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-08T11:44:36Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

Phantazm: /* Links */

2009-10-07T23:03:37Z

‎Links

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-07T23:02:10Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-07T22:57:29Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-07T22:56:47Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-07T22:56:14Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-07T22:55:38Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-07T22:53:02Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

Phantazm: /* What is the true cost of spam? */

2009-10-07T22:47:33Z

‎What is the true cost of spam?

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 What could you buy for that much? Every day? Anyone any wishes..?<br><br>
-PS: I should add that this calculation is a minimum estimation, as it doesn't include the cost of damages done by virus, spyware, phishing...<br><br>
+PS: I should add that this calculation is a minimum estimation, as it doesn't include the cost of damages done by [[Computer Virus|Virus]], [[Spyware]], [[Phishing]]...<br><br>
 ==The dark side of spam==
-Some may argue that people only need to install a 100% efficient spamfilter, and then the problem is solved. However, the target is moving, evolving and mutating. No filter can get the last spam. Spamfilters also have a drawback; the more they eat, the more spam becomes invisible. Receive one email and 9 was filtered, but you never see them. If 99% was filtered out, you wouldn't see it either. Or think about it. But in the dark spam consumes a growing amount of the nets processing power. Making spam invisible only hides the symptoms, but leaves botnets, zombie-pc's and highjacked sites in the dark, evolving unseen.<br>
+Some may argue that people only need to install a 100% efficient spamfilter, and then the problem is solved. However, the target is moving, evolving and mutating. No filter can get the last spam. Spamfilters also have a drawback; the more they eat, the more spam becomes invisible. Receive one email and 9 was filtered, but you never see them. If 99% was filtered out, you wouldn't see it either. Or think about it. But in the dark spam consumes a growing amount of the nets processing power. Making spam invisible only hides the symptoms, but leaves botnets, zombie-pc's and hijacked sites in the dark, evolving unseen.<br>
 Spam filters may stop spam from being received, but cannot stop it from being sent. A growing amount of bandwidth is drained in the background. Spammers enjoy free traffic since they are not paying. And the ISPs just pass the bill along. Cost of bandwidth is another case of insignificant parts being a larger sum:<br><br>
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
-What is spam: [[http://www.mywot.com/wiki/Spam]]
+Spam: http://www.mywot.com/wiki/Spam

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:44, 8 October 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>		This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>
−	Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it such simple terms that <i>everyone</i> might understand this:<br><br>	+	Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it in such simple terms that <i>everyone</i> might understand this:<br><br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:03, 7 October 2009
Line 55:		Line 55:


−	~~Spam~~: [[http://www.mywot.com/wiki/Spam]]	+	What is spam: [[http://www.mywot.com/wiki/Spam]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 <br>
-This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>'
+This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>
-Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it so simple that <i>everyone</i> might understand this:<br><br>
+Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it such simple terms that <i>everyone</i> might understand this:<br><br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 7 October 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>'		This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>'
−	Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it so simple that <i>everyone</i> might understand:<br><br>	+	Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it so simple that <i>everyone</i> might understand this:<br><br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 7 October 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>'		This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>'
−	Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it so simple that <i>everyone<i> might understand:<br><br>	+	Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain it so simple that <i>everyone</i> might understand:<br><br>

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 <br>
-This text is not a technical lecture, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.
+This text is not a technical lecture only for experts, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.<br>
-Rather it's the opposite; an attempt to explain so that everyone might understand:<br><br>
+Rather the opposite; an attempt to explain so simple that everyone might understand:<br><br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 7 October 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	<br>		<br>
		+
		+	This text is not a technical lecture, delving deep into obscure aspects of 'spam'.
		+	Rather it's the opposite; an attempt to explain so that everyone might understand:<br><br>
		+

	'''What is the true cost of spam?'''<br>		'''What is the true cost of spam?'''<br>