Brad Templeton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:01:40PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
Hi Alan (how's mother ;-) and Brad,
Brad Templeton <brad(_at_)templetons(_dot_)com> wrote:
My concern was that dropping the amount of spam by 3 orders of
magnitude isn't enough. There are ISP's getting 100's of millions of
spams a day. Even at 1/1000 the rate, 100,000 spams a day is
problematic to deal with.
Surely no more than a couple of ISPs get that sort of volume?
Even companies do, as a comparison to overall population. We get
approximately a million spams/day. We only have 50,000 users, and
somewhere around 300K legitimate emails.
However, the key test is this -- what's the volume compared to that
of normal mail. If, for example, it's 1% of normal mail, there
really isn't a server load question of significance. If currently
spam is 80% of all mail, a factor of 1000 would make it .4% of all
mail. Is spam now over 80% of all mail?
In some cases yes. Ours is getting close to 80%.
In theory, though not yet proven, I think if you dropped the
effectiveness of spam by 3 orders of magnitude, the spammers would
actually cut back their activites.
The economics are such that it's viable for some of the high volume
spammers even at that reduced return rate.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg