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

[Scott A Crosby <crosby () qwes math cmu edu>]

On 4 May 2002, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> Scott Granados <scott () graphidelix net> writes:
>
> > No I think your message illustrates things pretty well.  I guess the
> > fundimental differenc here is not only does it cost usually very little
> > to receive these messages it costs even less infact dramatically to send
> > spam.  It seems there is no real reason for the spammer to be concerned
> > with whether the mail is properly targeted or not so a full on flood is
> > possible and the leads generated by this flood percentage wise have to
> > be many factors less than the percentage of success in snailmail.
>
> It does not cost "very little" to recieve spam.  At my real job (ie,
> not seastrom.com), we're running a very nice (but expensive)
> commercial product to filter this stuff, and in a given time quantum
> during which we processed 1.9 million messages, spam and virii
> accounted for about 600k (32% was the last number I saw from our stats
> script).  It's reasonable to assume, since some unwanted messages slip
> through, that we're over a third of all email being UCE.

<trollishly>

I'd like the costs quantified.. Servers and disks are expensive, but if
they handle a ten million messages during their lifetime, the amortized
cost PER MESSAGE is cheap.

How cheap is it?


I bullshitted about $.00022/message with
         Emails's are 10kb.
         $1/gig (bandwidth) and
         $10/gig (disk capacity, falsly assuming email is never deleted.)
         $0 (for the server, cause I can't guess within an order
             of magnitude.)

I bullshitted about $.00022/spam with
         Spams's are 10kb.
         $1/gig (bandwidth) and
         $10/gig (disk capacity, falsly assuming spam is never deleted.)
         $0 (for the server, cause I can't guess within an order
             of magnitude.)

What do you guess for the amortized cost/spam?

``A modern email infrastructure costing $XXX/day (amortized over 2 years)
can handle YYY messages, thus the average cost/message is $XXX/YYY.''

</trollishly>

I've not seen quantified numbers bandied about in the past NANOG
spam-flamewars, so maybe this isn't beating a dead horse.


I do find it amusing that nobody responded to my more relevant and
intended thrust, about how putting a 'sender pays receiver for email'
could cause a variety of new abuses of the email system.


Scott