Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

[<william () elan net>]

I'm curious on this "extra traffic" data, since I'm somewhat involved with 
antispam website, it'd be interesting to get the statistics and post it to 
explain others how bad spam is for internet not only in annoyance but in 
actual extra costs and wasted traffic.

Do you have data on approximate amount of this extra mail bandwidth due to 
spam per user? Actually lets be more exact, can some of you with 10,000 
real user mail accounts reply how much traffic your mail server is using 
and if you have spam filter, how much (in percentage) of mail were filters.
And how big were the filterd spam in comparison to all other regular mails?
And if possible how much in amount of disk space was it in comparison to 
all other emails?

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Gregory Hicks wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Scott Granados <scott () graphidelix net>
> >
> > I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge... 
> > can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most 
> > friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big 
> > deal with spam is.  Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some 
> [...snip...]
> > money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per 
> > packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end 
> > user to filter properly and or dress that delete key.  I always shut 
> [...snip...]
>
> The problem with this is that, yes, to the END USER, there is no direct
> cost involved.
>
> However, in order to maintain the same level of service, the ISP is
> forced to go get a bigger pipe and/or bigger, faster routers and/or
> servers.  (Raises prices a bit per account)
>
> The transit provider raises the costs to the ISP because the packet
> count has gone way up.
>
> The backbone provider has equipment running a bit hotter because of the
> increased packet count.  This may cause them to either increase the
> bill to the transit provider and/or procure bigger and better equipment
> (to handle the load) before their planned replacement time...
>
> The peers to this ISP are forced to get either bigger pipes and/or more
> costly equipment (routers) in order to handle the increased packet
> count they might be seeing.
>
> In all of this, the bozo (well..., 'user' really) originating the email
> (well, spam) has not paid a thing other than a temporary interruption
> in service for one of his throw-away accounts and is still paying a
> 'flat rate' for the POP (dial-in) service that HIS isp is providing.
>
> For snail mail junk mail (aka spam), the mailer bears ALL of the costs
> and, if there is insufficient returns on their junk mail, is forced to
> stop.  A 'spammer' does not see these costs and thus has no incentive
> to find another model to do business.
>
> We get, for our 7K users, upwards of 25,000+ unwanted messages per day
> that make it past our not so rigid filters.
>
> My $0.02 worth.  Use the delete key...
>
> Regards,
> Gregory Hicks
>
>
> > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> > > > > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> > > > > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> > > > > and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm that you do want the account.
> > > >
> > > > spam is like pollution in that (a) whenever you're not sure if you're
> > > > doing it, you probably are, and (b) if everybody did whatever it is,
> > > > life would be universally worse for, well, everybody.
> > > >
> > > > > Random disclaimer: Yes, we're a competitor of no-ip.com's... And yes, we
> > > > > used to send similar emails to people signing up for an account,
> > > > > although nowadays instead of sending them an initial password we send a
> > > > > confirm URL instead.
> > > >
> > > > that's the right approach.  no-ip's problem was they presumed my 
> permission.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You don't even have to be in the "big idiot" league to figure out that in 
> > > both the "wrong" and the "right" approach as sanctioned above by a higher 
> > > authority, an email message (aka spam) is sent to the presumed subscriber.
> > >
> > > One sends a password, one asks for permission to issue a password on their
> > > site. What's the difference in the annoy factor, if indeed one were to be 
> > > subscribed by a secret "admirer"?
> > >
> > > Mr. Halmu chose to think, rather than bindly obey...
> > >
> > > --Mitch
> > > NetSide

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Communications