nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators - NOT
From: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:00:46 -0700
Cost transference. The cost of Spam via postal mail is borne by the
sender.
When sent via email, the cost is shouldered by the recipient.
It is not perfect comparation. For both, e-mail and post-mail, recipient pays the same cost for sorting mail , mail box etc. But, for e-mail, sender pays nothing, so he has not natural limitations.
There is a plethora of methodology, and suggestions as to how best to
combat the
spew, and most of us have accepted the risk of the occasional false
positive, Don't talk for others. For most people I ever know, such risk is unacceptable. Any sale person said you _risk of missing e-mail must be 0_. For me personal, risk of delaying e-mail due to false positive is OK (I read spam folder once a few days), risk of missing e-mail is unacceptable. Moreover, spam have useful information _simetimes_ , so - yes, spammers get their profits, it is well known.
We have resorted to trying to get the customer to bring his own pressure
on his
provider, we have tried to pressure providers to be more responsive, unfortunately with mixed results. Especially when legislation and rules
are
formulated that can be at odds with the advertising campaigns of the
providers Rules helps a little - now I have more spam from sources, which are not subjected by this rule (Russian spam, for example). Rules can help if they are applied to those, who order spam, not those who sends it (I can always find spamming company which is not regulated by this legislation, not any problem). On the othere hand, I am not sure, if I want to have 0 level of spam. In reality, I'd like to limit it to 10 - 20 messages / day, and have this messages separated from normal messages.
themselves. All in all though we are trying to fight the good fight, and believe in technology, not legislation. cheers. Doug ====================================== We can get rid of spam on your domain! , Anti-spam solutions http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com ======================================
Current thread:
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT), (continued)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Chris Brenton (Apr 19)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Brian Russo (Apr 19)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Chris Brenton (Apr 19)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Brian Russo (Apr 19)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Jeff Shultz, WIllamette Valley Internet (Apr 19)
- RE: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Geo. (Apr 19)
- Re: Microsoft XP SP2 (was Re: Lazy network operators - NOT) Alexei Roudnev (Apr 19)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Paul Vixie (Apr 19)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Sean Donelan (Apr 19)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Matt Hess (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators - NOT Alexei Roudnev (Apr 18)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joel Jaeggli (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 15)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 15)
- Re: Lazy network operators Pekka Savola (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 16)
- Re: Lazy network operators Niels Bakker (Apr 16)