Barry Shein <bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com> wrote:
The other day we were being pelted by a single spam from over 1,500
different IP addresses, presumably all compromised. That's not a
singular incident, in fact the day before a similar incident involving
over 1,000 hosts occurred tho I'll admit numbers like that don't tend
to happen daily,
I *dream* of getting spam from only 1K hosts a day.
While my situation is unusual, it's the leading edge, and a
predictor of others situations in the future.
So, your point only holds water if we're to agree that the current
situation is cost-free or nearly so, so the solution must be cost-free
or nearly so.
I'd put the objections a different way. It's difficult to quantify
the recipients cost due to spam. Sure, you can come up with
reasonable figures for end-users losing productivity due to spam, but
those figures aren't a line item on someones budget.
In contrast, anti-spam systems *are* line items, especially to the
people who deploy them, and to anti-spam companies. Any solution,
therefore, which reduces spam, has huge cost to some parties, and
non-accountable savings to others.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg