North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Paul's Mailfrom (Was: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at

  • From: Patrick
  • Date: Mon Aug 26 23:36:02 2002

On 27 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:

>
> > As a user, I pay my ISP to forward IP packets. If there happen to be TCP
> > segments in those packets, that's something between me and the person the
> > packet is addressed to, ...
>
> ...and, occasionally, your ISP's "abuse desk."  If this function of your ISP
> costs less than 1 FTE per 10,000 dialups or 1,000 T1's or 100 T3's, then your
> ISP is a slacker and probably a magnet for professional spammers as well.

I don't disagree with what I believe to be the goal of you offering the
numbers you are (encourging provider to reduce to a minimum level the
theft of service that their customers may be perpetrating a.k.a. "spamming"
while balancing the costs of such a function,) but you're offering very
definitive figures/labeling, and I'm curious as to what you are basing your
calculations/labels on, and what the linearity of the scaling is in your
opinion.

Your own experience at MAPS? At MFN? Wishful thinking?

Personally, I'd much rather try to justify a FTE for 1000 T-1s than I would
for 10,000 dialup users.

It's hard to imagine any ISP with 100,000 dialup customers succesfully
justifying 10 individuals dedicated to abuse to the powers that be.  I'm aware
of ISPs with 1,000,000+ dialup customers that have an *admin* team of that
size and seem to have a relatively good control on spam issues.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/