Network: Feedback

JOHN SECKER (Feedback, 2 June) is incorrect in stating that spam is not a problem for end-users. I use a relatively slow dial-up connection to the Internet, and often find that a large percentage of my e-mail (up to 50 per cent by size) is spam.

Frankly, the sentiment that I shouldn't object to someone forcing me to download an e-mail message which contains nothing whatsoever of interest and which I have given no sign of wanting staggers me. I routinely spend a large amount of time tracing the source of the spam and complaining to the relevant people - not because I want to "a cause to fight", but because I want a solution.

Not only that, but I also object to the fact that a large proportion of my Internet subscription fee is also wasted because of it. It is an undeniable fact that spam costs everybody involved real money, and that can't be good for the future of the Internet.

MATTHEW GARRETT

cavan@enterprise.net

u

JOHN SECKER asserts that those of us who are suffering severe spam problems are making a fuss about nothing. Just because he doesn't mind the occasional personal spam doesn't mean this isn't a genuine problem for others.

Those who suffer most are small businesses and organisations. One of my clients is a small media production company with around a dozen employees. Everyone has their own e-mail address, with access to the Internet via a dial-up gateway. Freelances and clients using the facilities are also given e-mail addresses while they are working there. The result is that there are about 60 or 70 addresses at the company's domain, and each one of these is spammed every day. At the last count, the volume of spam was approximately 800 messages per business day coming into the office.

Relax and ignore it, eh?

KEITH JOHNSON

keith@xentrik.demon.co.uk

u

IT WAS entertaining to read Mark Vernon's report ("Caught in a Net of Corruption?", 2 June) regarding the Which? Online annual Internet survey. Although the article eventually gave a balanced view of the report's findings, the introduction and initial comments were so inflammatory and sensationalist as to stir up as much negative reaction to the Internet as the Which? Online report is said to have found amongst interviewees.

Clearly, Mr Vernon is well acquainted with Darrell Huff's excellent book How to Lie with Statistics when he says that "nearly half of the 2,124 people confidentially interviewed ... believe the risk of fraud is high" and "one in three even see the Internet as a threat to national security".

Well, pardon me for stating the obvious, but surely that also means more than half the interviewees believe the risk of fraud is not high. And if one in three sees the Net as a risk to national security, then two out of three don't.

Come, come, we all know that you're in the business of selling newspapers, and that there's nothing like a good survey to generate the raw material for you to create a ripping yarn, but does it have to be done in such a "shock, horror" manner?

Remember, it's not only the "Internet service providers and content providers ... that have an enormous responsibility [for] guiding the consumer and showing them the benefits of the Internet" - national newspapers also share in that responsibility.

PETER MILLARD peterm@slingshot.co.uk

u

Correspondence should be e-mailed to network@ independent.co.uk or posted to Feedback, Network, The Independent, One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DL.