Report: Spam Accounts for 90-95% of All Email
In 2001, spam accounted for an estimated 5% of our email. In 2007, it clogs our inboxes to the tune of 90-95% of all email sent, according to a new report released today by Barracuda Networks. Barracuda, a leading vendor of spam filtering technology, based their analysis on the over 1 billion emails that the company's software scans each day. The year-over-year increase appears to indicate the failure of the US federal CAN-SPAM Act, which was passed in 2004 when spam only accounted for about 70% of all email sent.
Last month we reported on a study from research firm IDC that predicted that 2007 would be the first time that spam out numbered legit email. Our readers didn't think that sounded right: surely spam outnumbered legit email years ago. "Spam sure as hell surpassed legit emails in my inbox -- years ago. Mine. My mom, dad, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, every single friend I've talked to about it, my cat and dog, Boobo my hamster, everyone..." wrote one commenter.
Barracuda's report corroborates those feelings and calls into question the IDC report. Certainly, from my own personal experience, it is a lot easier to believe Barracuda. I use three email accounts on a regular basis, and across them, I get about 2500-3000 pieces of spam each week. I get a lot of legit email, as well, but not enough to outnumber the unsolicited stuff. Luckily (for most users), I am in the minority. According to the report, 65% of email users get less than 10 pieces of junk mail per day (half get less than 5). Just 13% find themselves in the unhappy position of receiving more than 50 spam emails per day.
Barracuda's report also found that spam is not only annoying, but it is the most annoying form of junk advertising. 57% of respondents to a survey question asking what the worst form unsolicited advertising was said spam, compared to just 31% for postal junk mail and 12% for telemarketers.
Unfortunately, spammers continue to evolve their tactics to beat the filters. In 2006 there was a rise of image spam and botnets. This past year, spammers were seen using attachments (like PDF files) as well as using more advanced identity obfuscation techniques.
The good news is that spam filtering technology is evolving right along with the spammers, and it works well. Thanks to filters, I only see about 3-4% of the spam I get (which is still a lot given the immense volume). Here's to a spam free 2008 -- hey, a guy can dream, right?
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Spam on average makes up 8 or 9 out of ten emails I receive, so the 90 percent figure sound about right. What amazes me is that spammers might actually get response from emails with subject lines that include numbers, symbols, profanity, performance 'accusations' and body part descriptions. Why else would they continue to send them? Who the heck clicks on these things, or actually does business with outfits hawking enhancement??
Posted by: Jeff Crites | December 12, 2007 6:01 AM
I got one big problem with this report: its source. As in credibility and veracity. Take it with a big grain of salt.
Posted by: Graeme Thickins | December 12, 2007 7:23 AM
The disparity is probably based on the methodology. I haven't seen the report, but I would think IDC is including internal email in that number, Barracuda is looking solely at email as it crosses the Internet.
When I was working as a journalist and my work email address was attached to 1000s of articles, I would put the spam to legitimate email ratio (including internal email) at 100:1. Now, even with my email address out there at a smaller scale, the ratio is more around 1:5.
The technology has changed considerably since 2004 as well, so products, like IronPort, can drop spam so that it doesn't even make it into quarantine.
Posted by: Michael Caton | December 12, 2007 9:51 AM
The newest issue with internet spam is sending these messages via SMS to cell phones as text messages. Many cellular providers (::cough:: Verizon) refuse to implement a blocking system, this means the recipient gets charged (assuming they don't have a text plan, in which case it counts against their monthy text limit). Over the next few years as the mobile industry expands this type of spam will increase as rapidly as we see email spam over the last five years. Though some legitamate text advertising may exist (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/fluc_put_your_mobile_phone_to_work.php) there appears to be no real way to opt-out without loosing texting abilities.
On a side note, I find gmail is fairly efficient at eliminating spam, of course as spammers get craftier, that may change. :-(
Posted by: lise | December 12, 2007 10:44 AM
This is the reason why I no longer run my own mailserver at home, the constant work to keep my filters updated to fight spam was just a full time job. I've had some of the same domains for 7 years now, and I have them all pointed to Google Apps for Domains for mail -> I'm currently seeing 12,000+ spams emails a month that Gmail catches - it only lets through maybe 10-20 month, so it really helps. Still, I'm working on a way to have spam generate income for the ones that receive it, if we can turn the tables maybe we'll be able to turn the tide a bit. Still, I don't think there's a technical solution, I think it's going to need to become like Instant Messaging, you have to approve anyone who is going to email you.
Posted by: fak3r | December 13, 2007 6:44 AM