Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:10:45 +0000 (GMT)

>> push the message storage to the user end (where it probably ought to be) 

> Why is that?

1)  Scaleability.  There is far more aggregate processing power and aggregate 
disk space available within the user community to store messages than within any 
of the ISPs own data centers.

2)  Cost.  Both disk space and CPU cycles are probably cheaper at most end-user 
machines, too... most users probably have cheap(er) IDE disk drives, while many 
ISPs could be using RAID arrays or (more likely) mirrored SCSI drives, which are 
generally more expensive per gig than end-user stuff is.  By the same token, 
high-end high-performance server systems usually cost more per CPU cycle than 
cheaper end-user-grade stuff does.  So not only is it CHEAPER in total for 
storage and processing at the user end, but user=end processing is INFINITELY 
easier from the ISP perspective, since it's then the user's pocketbook paying 
for it. 

3)  Responsibility.  Once the message is handed off to the destination user, the 
ISP no longer has to worry about it.  If they hang onto it, they have to still 
worry about backups, possible restoration, improper access, loss due to system 
crashes, fire, natural disasters, intrustion, etc etc.

4)  Control.  Once the user has picked up their E-mail, what they do with it 
after that is THEIR OWN choice, and the ISP simply isn't involved.  The user can 
process, store, delete, reroute, or whatever else they want... and if they want 
to let 200Gb of mail stack up in their Inbox, because that style suits them, 
they can do so.  The ISP doesn't have to care anymore.

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support free and fair US elections!  http://stickers.defend-democracy.org
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

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

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:05:14 -0500

But the problem with a goal of every end-user running a mail server is
that they're not generally prepared to be "always on" which can create
various problems including bouncebacks, must keep their own servers
functional which thus far tends to be very difficult, additionally
must keep any domain mapping functional which only complicates matters
further, and must deal with all sorts of problems including spammers
and their ilk flooding their server into uselessness, managing backup
servers, possibly load-balancing, having to have roughly peak-usage
bandwidth and resources or suffer the consequences, etc etc etc.

But a mailbox via pop or imap is just an authentication, a lock and a
basically one or more file transfers, plus or minus, and is quite
forgiving of all kinds of subtleties.

I think end-to-end for email was a nice idea in the far distant past
but it's become a dead dodo for the vast majority of customers who
would just as soon be CUSTOMERS of all those complexities I mention
rather than service providers.

At any rate, I don't know that it really matters since whatever is
adopted to fight spam coming out of a forum such as this can be
utilized by, to quote one of Lily Tomlin's characters, Kings and
Queens right down to the Scum of the Earth.

I guess the only major difference is that if we presume that anything
proposed must work in an end to end environment inclusive of, e.g.,
home users, then it would need to scale down to smaller per
transaction resources and a level of simplicity that people with very
limited interest can quickly and easily grasp (e.g., automatable to a
very high degree.)

Of course, then the PDP-11 and Atari/ST users will show up demanding
that their systems be taken into full account...

I know, we'll wave that hand when we get to it.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:19:08 +0000

>of the ISPs own data centers.

While this may be true, such an approach might *consume* more of these
resources (and bandwidth) than would rejection upstream. i.e. you'd have to
do a lot of figuring to convince me that n GB at end user is cheaper than m
GB further upstream, given that we know very little about the values of n,m
.

>machines, too... most users probably have cheap(er) IDE disk drives, >

Well, yes, but this (and the bandwidth) becomes an extra cost of mail
service. Is this what end-users want? Would they pay (perhaps more) for
something else? Also, see the point about *consumption* above. It's all
very well hypothesising about costs, but some consideration of potential
benefits would go well here. Remember that the MTS is supposed to offer
service to a very wide range of end-user hardware (and pockets).

>3) Responsibility. 
Obviously attractive to an ISP in certain circumstances, but it's not just
the ISP view we're considering here.

>4) Control. 

Indeed, but this isn't an argument against user control being implemented
upstream.

It seems to me that your position amounts to saying that we (the community)
don't have a spam problem, end-users have a spam problem.
Is this right?