From an irate email to webmaster:
"Every day, over three hundred email recipients within the University have to clear out 20 to 30 junk emails which can take up to 30 minutes."
20 to 30! How awful!
(This is before I even get to the question of how on earth it can take you 30 minutes to delete 30 junk emails... unless they mean a total of 30 man-minutes across the 300 email recipients within the University ... and if so, why have they selected those 300 out of the 30,000-odd email recipients in the University?)
"Every day, over three hundred email recipients within the University have to clear out 20 to 30 junk emails which can take up to 30 minutes."
20 to 30! How awful!
(This is before I even get to the question of how on earth it can take you 30 minutes to delete 30 junk emails... unless they mean a total of 30 man-minutes across the 300 email recipients within the University ... and if so, why have they selected those 300 out of the 30,000-odd email recipients in the University?)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-24 09:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-24 10:12 am (UTC)I guess they did say upto 20 to 30 minutes. I know I have zombie days when deleting a mail could easily take a minute. But it's not as if I'd be more productive doing anything else instead. Doing something productive would be positively dengerous, in fact, :).
no subject
Date: 2004-05-24 10:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-24 11:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-24 03:34 pm (UTC)20-30 spam messages taking half an hour to process? This moron is reading the things! I filter out about 90% of the spam, and the remnant is deleted just by looking at the subject line.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 02:02 am (UTC)Is this advice documented on the web anywhere? It'd be useful to point people here at it if so.
This moron is reading the things!
That was the only explanation I could think of. But, I mean, FFS... "Oooh, what's this email? 'Fresh t33n fuc|< cam'... what's one of those? I'd better read it and see what needs to be actioned."
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 02:26 am (UTC)I think a lot of people open those emails from "Requirement Q. Algorithm" with no subject, which I bin unread. One of these days someone with a funny name is going to send me something important and I'll bin it without thinking.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 02:53 am (UTC)I know what you mean about the funny-name emails. We got a genuine one from "Gaynor A. Hollander" which I nearly binned just today.
The other problem is that as webmaster we get all kinds of bizarre mails, in the text formatting equivalent of green crayon, from [whatever]@hotmail which usually go "PLEASE TO SEND ME FOR APPLY FORMS THE CAMBRIDGE DEGREE IN BANKING I HAVE DEGREE IN WHICH TO CONVERT ENLGISH AND AM HIGHLY SKILL IN ARTS" or "i cant access your website pls fix now urgent!!!!!!!" or similar, so it's quite hard to filter at all...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 06:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 03:48 am (UTC)Martin Lucas-Smith gave a reasonable presentation on protecting email addresses from spam harvesters at the last web liaison meeting, but he's only got the one sentence about how you do actually need to have email addresses on web pages.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-25 07:38 am (UTC)