Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions

Gordon Peterson:
> > > push the message storage to the user end (where it probably ought to
> be)
>
>
> > Why is that?
> 1) Scaleability. There is far more aggregate processing power and
> aggregate
> disk space available within the user community to store messages than
> within any
> of the ISPs own data centers.
While this may be true, such an approach might *consume* more of these
resources (and bandwidth) than would rejection upstream. i.e. you'd have to
do a lot of figuring to convince me that n GB at end user is cheaper than m
GB further upstream, given that we know very little about the values of n,m
.


> 2) Cost. Both disk space and CPU cycles are probably cheaper at most
> end-user
> machines, too... most users probably have cheap(er) IDE disk drives, >
Well, yes, but this (and the bandwidth) becomes an extra cost of mail
service. Is this what end-users want? Would they pay (perhaps more) for
something else? Also, see the point about *consumption* above. It's all
very well hypothesising about costs, but some consideration of potential
benefits would go well here. Remember that the MTS is supposed to offer
service to a very wide range of end-user hardware (and pockets).
  


> 3) Responsibility. 
Obviously attractive to an ISP in certain circumstances, but it's not just
the ISP view we're considering here.

> 4) Control. 
Indeed, but this isn't an argument against user control being implemented
upstream.

It seems to me that your position amounts to saying that we (the community)
don't have a spam problem, end-users have a spam problem.
Is this right?



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg