Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Ecomomics

From: "Hannigan, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:35:04 -0500

So what are we saying? Systemic destruction of spam is not necessary? 

---
Martin Hannigan
[email-masked]
Verisign, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: John Levine <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Dec 31 07:30:42 2004
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Ecomomics

> I believe that even with 90% spam, the number of backbone bits used
> for email is less than that used for web pages or for file sharing.
> 
> The costs of spam are out at the edges, mail servers and customer
> support.

It is obvious HTTP would win, and P2P would be a good rival, but email 
is not far behind. Statistics change between different service 
providers, but when you need 30% more bandwidth because of spam, it's 
still a cost.

Thing is, who makes money from these 30% being provided? Answer is, 
everyone but the lowest in the chain of consumers.

	Gadi.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Gadi Evron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:59:48 +0200

> So what are we saying? Systemic destruction of spam is not necessary? 

No. It simply says that spam is not the biggest bandwidth bogger - by 
itself. With viruses and spyware I'd put money on it.

	Gadi.

---

From: Jim Whitescarver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:36:20 -0500

I think most of us consider email phishing, hoaxes, viruses and spyware 
unsolicited email, i.e. spam.  The main differences with advertising is 
that advertisers would not be as adverse to paying their way.

Jim

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Dec 2004 16:42:08 -0000

>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.

---

From: Gadi Evron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:12:39 +0200

> 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.