John Levine wrote:
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.
Like I said, Don't sue me on the numbers - they are my own and yours may
vary, but it certainly takes a huge ammount of our traffic that it
shouldn't?
Why do we allow this cr?p through our tubes?
Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg