So what are we saying? Systemic destruction of spam is not necessary?
---
Martin Hannigan
hannigan(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com
Verisign, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <asrg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: John Levine <asrg(_at_)johnlevine(_dot_)com>
CC: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Fri Dec 31 07:30:42 2004
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Ecomomics
I believe that even with 90% spam, the number of backbone bits used
for email is less than that used for web pages or for file sharing.
The costs of spam are out at the edges, mail servers and customer
support.
It is obvious HTTP would win, and P2P would be a good rival, but email
is not far behind. Statistics change between different service
providers, but when you need 30% more bandwidth because of spam, it's
still a cost.
Thing is, who makes money from these 30% being provided? Answer is,
everyone but the lowest in the chain of consumers.
Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg