The Carbon Footprint of Spam: Not

Iria · Apr 16, 2009, 09:46 PM

No, although livestock has been blamed for some of the effects of global warming, we're not talking about spam the food here. We're talking about spam the email annoyance, and how much energy is wasted by it.
_________
Source: Tech-Ex

mike2h · Apr 16, 2009, 11:07 PM

add spam the phone annoyance to that list.

ExitiosuS · Apr 17, 2009, 03:47 AM

Er, I disagree with "Most of these systems are on all the time. For example, McAfee says that sender-to-receiver spam transmission is part of the problem. Hello, those servers are on all the time. They're not being turned off when not being used to transmit spam"

As we all know as part of this industry, CPU load % does actually make a difference, if you don't include ANY other activity occuring in a server -- when the CPU load is higher, the power consumption is higher -- feeding 62 TRILLION spam emails through servers is still a load of SOME sort, it's still power of SOME sort, and it isn't as tiny as it is made to appear in this article.

Also, one could further make the argument, by that same logic, that we should all stop using computers altogether to avoid the carbon footprint created from a power supply and peripherals -- why not just continue using paper mail, and continue receiving silly ads by conventional mail? Of course, that's more logical than having servers running.

Sure, they don't turn off the servers... but dismissing this issue of spam is kind of retarded because they (McAfee) make an anti-spam piece of software. This is quite an important study, in my opinion, because it shows that spam is creating a whole other problem altogether -- that it's not just an eye-sore, but also causing damage to the planet. A whole bunch of small things DO add up to a larger thing...and with the increase of spam, that seems to be what this study is suggesting.

Spam is annoying as all hell.

On my Hotmail account that is 9 years old, I receive about 30 spams a day. -.-; ... Fortunately, that's not my main account. haha

Apr 16, 2009, 09:46 PM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 89	The Carbon Footprint of Spam: Not No, although livestock has been blamed for some of the effects of global warming, we're not talking about spam the food here. We're talking about spam the email annoyance, and how much energy is wasted by it. _________ Source: Tech-Ex

Apr 16, 2009, 11:07 PM	#2
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	Re: The Carbon Footprint of Spam: Not add spam the phone annoyance to that list. __________________

Apr 17, 2009, 03:47 AM	#3
ExitiosuS Simian Masterpiece! Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London, Ont. Canada Posts: 358 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Re: The Carbon Footprint of Spam: Not Er, I disagree with "Most of these systems are on all the time. For example, McAfee says that sender-to-receiver spam transmission is part of the problem. Hello, those servers are on all the time. They're not being turned off when not being used to transmit spam" As we all know as part of this industry, CPU load % does actually make a difference, if you don't include ANY other activity occuring in a server -- when the CPU load is higher, the power consumption is higher -- feeding 62 TRILLION spam emails through servers is still a load of SOME sort, it's still power of SOME sort, and it isn't as tiny as it is made to appear in this article. Also, one could further make the argument, by that same logic, that we should all stop using computers altogether to avoid the carbon footprint created from a power supply and peripherals -- why not just continue using paper mail, and continue receiving silly ads by conventional mail? Of course, that's more logical than having servers running. Sure, they don't turn off the servers... but dismissing this issue of spam is kind of retarded because they (McAfee) make an anti-spam piece of software. This is quite an important study, in my opinion, because it shows that spam is creating a whole other problem altogether -- that it's not just an eye-sore, but also causing damage to the planet. A whole bunch of small things DO add up to a larger thing...and with the increase of spam, that seems to be what this study is suggesting. Spam is annoying as all hell. On my Hotmail account that is 9 years old, I receive about 30 spams a day. -.-; ... Fortunately, that's not my main account. haha Last edited by ExitiosuS; Apr 17, 2009 at 03:58 AM.