[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004, "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>Sure it makes sense. To the end user.
Doing something that makes sense to the end user is a good first step.. :-)
>This pushes UP costs to the
>ISP since you blow the aggregation model out of the water and must
>now guarantee a certain amount of space across every user.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that... care to be a bit more lucid?
If you're talking about DISK space, then (again) I claim that the amount of disk
space (at today's prices) is ridiculously cheap, not worth talking about in the
overall scheme of things. (Even the FREE ISPs are giving from 250Mb, 500Mb, or
1Gb of disk space for E-mail messages... even with mirroring, that's no more
than a dollar or so per user, which is NOT a significant percentage of the total
ISP operating costs. And the ISPs that get paid by the month get paid SO much
more (every month!) than the cost of the disk space involved that the disk space
cost (once!) is absolutely lost in the noise.)
>
>-M<
>
>
>--
>Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
>VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
>Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure
>hannigan at verisign.com
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asrg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:asrg-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
>> gep2 at terabites.com
>> Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 7:57 PM
>> To: asrg at ietf.org; jrk at merseymail.com
>> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam, defined, and permissions
>>
>>
>> >>>> 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.
>>
>> > While this may be true,
>>
>> I think it's almost CERTAINLY true, and probably by a LARGE factor.
>>
>> > ...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
>> .
>>
>> Rejection upstream saves sending the data through the Net but
>> I think the
>> evidence is NOT at all in that:
>>
>> 1) we can successfully define a universally agreeable
>> standard and get it
>> adopted in a timely way;
>>
>> 2) it doesn't suit recipients BETTER to give them
>> accessible copies of ALL
>> their mail, including the stuff that was quarantined/rejected
>> (which means that
>> in effect, one must (at least be prepared to) transfer the
>> spam too anyway).
>>
>> >>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, >
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Right now, I think that they want to be rid of the annoyance
>> of having to deal
>> with spam, spoofing, viruses, worms, scams, and phishing. We
>> could spend
>> another five years or ten years debating how to implement
>> that in an ideal way
>> (and it's a moving target!); meanwhile the users get angry,
>> legislators look at
>> (usually stupid) legislative remedies, and halfassed stupid
>> crap like SPF and
>> other DNS-based "solutions" (that aren't, really) get
>> implemented which mostly
>> just screws things up further. I'd rather see us come up
>> with something that
>> would make a major, visible improvement and do so quickly,
>> and which users would
>> feel like they had meaningful control over. If we don't do
>> it here, and soon,
>> we'll end up coming up with the "nice" and elegant solution
>> that the world has
>> already passed by.
>>
>> > 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).
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> >>3) Responsibility.
>>
>> > Obviously attractive to an ISP in certain circumstances,
>> but it's not just
>> the ISP view we're considering here.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> >>4) Control.
>>
>> > Indeed, but this isn't an argument against user control
>> being implemented
>> upstream.
>>
>> Right again, but then (1) the user has to pay OTHER people
>> and OTHER systems (at
>> a higher cost, probably, than his own) to do (hopefully) what
>> he needs; and (2)
>> we're likely to spend years defining a one-size-fits-all
>> solution (to a
>> moving-target problem) which will end up never converging on
>> something that
>> everyone can agree on (we've seen a lot of that going on here
>> already).
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Certainly the BULK of the problem is the problem that
>> end-users see, including
>> getting their own machines infected and thus greatly
>> contributing to the problem
>> net-wide. I don't think that the greater Net-wide spam
>> problem has a PRAYER of
>> being solved until we solve the problem at the end-user level
>> (including notably
>> the virus/worm/spambot/zombie problem).
>>
>>
>> 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
>Asrg at ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>.
>
>
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
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg