On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote:
So what are my alternatives? Give up on email? Pay $2k/year to
upgrade my equipment?
Change your domain and start fresh. Publish MX records for your old
domain that point to 127.0.0.1.
All of the proposed solutions which talk about filtering mail are a
waste of time.
Maybe for you and 0.01% of the population. For the other 99.99% of
us, filters are a good technology.
Does it really make sense to allow terabytes of garbage to fill the
network?
No, but how can you stop it?
Why wouldn't we just solve the problem by minimizing the garbage
traffic, instead of upgrading the network?
How? Who says what is or isn't garbage?
People who propose mail filters as a "solution" are implicitely
accepting that wasting network bandwidth and CPU time is OK.
No, we're simply acknowledging the fact that a real solution is difficult
or impossible, and then coming up with real-world technologies that help
most people most of the time.
A complete spam solution, which isn't a "solution", actually, but just
a way to cope, uses an arsenal of tools. You apply the cheaper tools
first (such as tempfail-first-time and blacklists), and then move on
to the more expensive tools like filtering. You stop once the cost
exceeds the benefit. By "tools", I also include techniques like
litigation; they're simply one more cost with an associated benefit.
My opinion is that we should minimize the problem, and THEN talk
about filtering. The filters will be cheaper to use, and will
probably have higher accuracy.
I agree, but the need for filters will never go away.
--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg