we are getting 93% spam. Therefore, a week we handle over 210,000 messages
which are pure junk mail. We eliminated most of it by offloading it to
SpamSlayer's Network. Now we have saved about 200kbits of steady stream to
be used for co-location.
Rudy K.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aredridel" <rick(_dot_)stewart(_at_)theinternetco(_dot_)net>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Calling ISPs: does bandwidth matter to your
bottom line?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:04:31PM -0500, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:53:46PM +0100, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
| >
| > to be precise, it doesn't require the MTA to accept it. it requires
the
| > MTA to transfer it, which is a bandwidth cost. in theory the MTA
can
| > still reject it at "." time.
|
| Indeed. One of these days I'm going to learn how to write what I
think.
|
Could ISPs please weigh in on whether your email/spam bandwidth cost is
signicant or not, thanks.
Yes.
3/4 of the mail we handle is spam.
I'd save at least 1% of my total budget if spam dissapeared, and nearly
20% of my bandwidth budget.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡