How's this for interesting? The picture here shows my company's spam volume for October 2006.
The highlights essentially say that almost 26,500 messages were sent to us, of which 69% (18,260) were tagged as spam. An additional 646 (about 2%) were tagged for using nasty words, and a 32 had banned file types (zip, bat, exe files, etc...) What really surprised me in this was that there were only 55 viruses caught out of this many emails. (And no, no network infections, either.)
Sadly, everything that I've read leads me to believe that 70% is about right for spam volume. 🙁
We pay a third party to scan all our email before it hits my servers, as I don't want the bandwith consumption to affect my network performance, nor do I want to pay for the bandwidth needed to transport this junk. (While I'm very happy with the provider we use, this isn't a sales pitch, so I'm not going to name them here. If you want to know, though, use my Contact Form to get in touch with me.)
Now just sit back and think for a moment on this volume. Assume you pay your people $10 per hour, and it takes them 5 seconds to identify and delete a spam email. That means that they can delete about 12 per minute. Based on that total volume above, we're talking about 2,208 minutes to delete that month's spam load. That equates to 36.81 hours, or $368.00 in lost staff wages. Even if it only takes only half that time, what did you lose in the opportunity to sell something to a customer? And this doesn't even take into consideration the cost of bandwidth, network latency, or anything else. Actually, if you want to run your own scenarios on cost, feel free to use my Automation Evaluation Form. It should do the job. 🙂
It sure makes a good case to buy a spam filter, doesn't it?