As I stated before and you can try this for yourself, the cost of
implementing 'GIEIS' would be exceeded by the loss to business by keeping
the SMTP protocol. Allow me to demonstrate this clearly for everyone.
Yesterday, I calculated (at ciphertrust.com) that 1000 employees, earning an
average of $15,000 per year, recieving 20 spam messages a day would result
in losses of $31,250. Now, America has approx. 300 Million inhabitants,
lets say 2 thirds of the population are not affected by spam in the
workplace. That still leaves us with 100 Million who would be. Now we'll
assume that their average wage would be $15,000 per year (very reasonable
assumption), if it cost 1000, $31,250, then it costs $31.25 per person, per
year. $31.25 multiplied by 100 Million is $3,125,000,000 per year. This is
just for America alone. 'GIEIS' could absorb $1 Billion per year and still
make business a substantial profit. Oh, and one other point, I haven't even
begun to add on the cost of virus', trojans, etc. Therefore, 'GIEIS' has
complete financial justificaton.
Good example of what starts out as a fairly reasonable argument but which then
makes a large and unjustified leap at the end to a completely illegitimate and
unjustified conclusion.
It's rather like the timeshare sales presentations which go something like this:
1) Do you like the resort? (A: yes, of course.)
2) Can you afford it? (A: yes.)
3) Good, sign here.
The fact is that there are often ALTERNATIVES which are MORE appealing and MORE
cost-effective.
You can't say that "GIEIS" "has complete financial justification" until you
demonstrate not only that IT solves the problem, but moreover that nothing else
solves it better for less.
Personally, I don't think that *any* solution that to be effective requires
re-engineering the entire world's E-mail infrastructure is a practical solution
today. There's just too much of it, in too many places, and with too little
onsite technical expertise in many of those places.
Again, that's what I like about my "permission list" approach... where it can
be
implemented in as little as ONE SINGLE CLIENT SYSTEM and yield an immediate,
direct benefit. It's a scaleable and incrementally implementable approach,
which is unlike just about ANYTHING else I've seen proposed here. What's more,
it's easy to understand and could be manipulated by the user more-or-less
directly. The user who benefits the most from it (and is thus motivated) is
the
user who sets up the permission list and maintains it.
It IS true that it doesn't (by itself) "eliminate" spam... but neither will
anything else I've seen discussed here, either. My system, in conjunction with
a good content filter to clean up a lot of the residual plain ASCII text spams
(and which are thus rendered FAR easier to filter) will probably yield the
highest benefit, the fastest, for the lowest cost of anything we've been
talking
about.
Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg