On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:57:41 -0400
Eric S Johansson <esj(_at_)harvee(_dot_)org> wrote:
Scott Nelson explained:
At 12:38 AM 9/13/03 +0100, Jonathan Morton wrote:
You assuming that the costs camram puts on a spammer are financial.
They are but only indirectly. Camram imposes a time penalty on
sending messages. Given a three second stamp, T1 data path yields a
140X slowdown for a spammer. Add a couple of bits to the stamp and
the slowdown is now 560X. In the spam world, revenue is a function of
volume. Slow them down and you reduce their revenue. Slowly it down
enough and you end up with reducing or eliminating profitability.
Translation: only one-off single-addressee messages are cost effective.
Bulk mail of any form, be it spam, mailing lists or other mass
broadcasts are penalised.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg