Most small business employees believe that high-level managers should do more to prevent offensive spam hitting their email inboxes.
A survey conducted by anti-virus specialists Sophos shows that more than 50 per cent of SME workers felt that more action should be taken by the boss to reduce spam of a violent or pornographic nature.
Not only is this type of communication distracting and offending personnel, they argue, unfiltered material wastes time and resources, which can in-turn can have a major impact on revenues.
So widespread is the problem becoming that spam experts estimate unsolicited e-mails account for more than half of all message traffic, and incidents are set to increase further next year.
“It is irresponsible for employers not to protect their staff from unsolicited emails containing offensive, pornographic and racist content – it’s practically asking for a human resources fiasco,” said Carole Theriault, security consultant at Sophos.
“More than half of those polled agreed that employers need to take action, but whether the majority of employers are actually doing anything about spam is another matter.”
However, separate research on the matter implies that UK employees could have a major role in spreading lewd emails.
A study by Queens University, Belfast, shows that workers in the UK are 30 per cent more likely to forward downloaded pornography onto their colleagues than their US counterparts.
The UK implemented laws last year prohibiting the sending of unsolicited email for the purposes of direct marketing – including invites to join pornographic websites - without the explicit consent of the recipient.
However, new laws only apply to individual users, leaving company mailboxes unprotected against the illicit spam.
Theriault added: “So long as there is money to be made from sending unsolicited email, spammers will continue to flog their services and wares – whether content is unsavoury or not.”
“By blocking spam at the email gateway, businesses can not only save time and money, they can also stop offensive communications upsetting their employees.”
