North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
On 4 May 2002, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > Scott Granados <[email protected]> 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
|