On April 25, 2004 at 16:31 aland(_at_)ox(_dot_)org (Alan DeKok) wrote:
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.
That's 1,000 different hosts sending ONE SPAM simultaneously, at one
given instant.
Not 1,000 per day.
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
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg