From: Matt Sergeant <msergeant(_at_)startechgroup(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
The volume of spam is a problem, but only in human attention and not
network bits/second, CPU cycles, or disk space, unless you have
thousands of users' spam to deal with.
It has become a problem CPU-wise for us. We run *very* aggressive
filters - 4 anti-virus filters, three types of anti-spam filter, and if
the customer wants it, a porn filter.
It's quite CPU intensive to deal with all the spam. Or put another way,
we'd certainly rather not have to ;-)
It's not entirely clear that resources spent on filtering should be
charged to receving spam, but let's assume they should.
How many CPU-seconds do you spend for each incoming mail mesage and
how man users do you have?
If you spend 1000 CPU cycles on every byte of incoming mail, then I
suspect you spend less than 0.01 CPU seconds of a GHz CPU per typical
less than 5 KByte mail message. However, assume I'm wrong by a factor
of 10 and you spend 10,000 cycles/byte. That implies that a cheap GHz
server can handle about 800,000 mail messages/day. Unless you have
thousands of users, how can you have a problem?
In other words, are you disagreeing with me?
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg