So what are we saying? Systemic destruction of spam is not necessary?
No, we're saying that the high speed backbones, which I gather is the
part of the net with which you are most familiar, is not where the
significant costs of spam occur.
I'd be interested to hear where the 30% extra number comes from, since
I've never heard anyone else claim anything like that other than
perhaps specialty networks that mostly do e-mail.
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.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg