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

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:08:12 -0500 (EST)

[email-masked] wrote:

> First off, if the E-mail is stored at the recipient end (where it
> makes sense to keep it, and process it, since that's where the bulk
> of the processing and storage resources are),

Then it has already consumed last-mile bandwidth, which can be the
most expensive part of the process, and is often the limiting factor.

> Typical spam messages (once you strip the HTML garbage out of them)

Who strips the HTML?  Do ISPs reject email with HTML?  In that case,
why can't they reject other email that looks like spam (however that's
defined, preferably user-definably)?

> As for TEMPORARY E-mail storage (say at a POP3 server), mind you
> that it is the ISPs themselves who create that monster by trying to
> discourage users from setting up their own POP3 servers (which in
> fact is extremely simple to do, if you have a machine which is
> online and running essentially all the time).

But is considerably trickier if you have dynamic IP, or you want to
have your machine online only when you want, or you just don't want to
eat the power bill to do what should be your ISP's job.

> But even if you don't have a fulltime POP3 server, it's fairly
> trivial to have a small background process running (as I do here)
> which empties POP3 mailboxes every minute or two.

Which still assumes you have a machine always on with a full-time
connection.

> But then too, it's TRULY difficult for me to feel terribly
> sympathetic to an ISP who charges $80 a month for high-speed
> connectivity and then grouses about devoting even $0.25 (total, not
> per month) for 250Mb (peak!) of mirrored disk space at a POP3 server
> to hold that customer's mail.

You've never run an ISP and priced storage, have you?

Seth

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

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:26:41 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hannigan, Martin wrote:

| Its sophisticated, bit not fancy. Good luck to cbl, they are working
the 20
| of 80/20 and its not easy (thanks cbl). The controllers are the 80.

I'm not sure what you mean.  The CBL is catching approximately 82% of
all spam sent our way.  Which ain't half bad.