On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote:
Automatic filters will get you so far, maybe up to 90-98% accuracy,
depending on which filter you use and what your mail mix looks like.
Automatic filters only work if you're not receiving any significant
amount of spam.
Delegation is the key. You delegate spam handling down to the level
that minimizes your cost. It's not cost-effective for a few people to
handle 100K spams. It's not cost effective for 20,000 end-users to
handle 50 spams each. It's probably cheapest for 1000 department-level
clerical people to deal with 1,000 spams each.
Note that you cannot eliminate the cost of dealing with spam. But
you can minimize it.
If you're receiving 100K+ spams a day, then the machines to run the
filters cost a fair amount of money.
Nah. If you're receiving that kind of mail volume, you have big
machines with under-utilized CPUs anyway. Content-scanning just uses
up CPU cycles that would be wasted. Nik Clayton says he filters
2 million messages/day with SpamAssassin; I'd be amazed if fewer
than 100K of those are spam.
With the spam volume Chris Lewis is saying Nortel gets, I'd be
surprised if their infrastructure costs were less than $100K.
Large companies can afford that. Small ones can't.
Small companies don't get 100K spams/day.
--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg