Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:01:00 -0500 From: "Bob Hall" <rjhalljr@starpower.net> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: this spam Message-ID: <20011127200100.A809@starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20011127162010.01042450@mail.sage-american.com>; from jacks@sage-american.com on Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:20:10PM -0600 References: <20011127104635.Y15780-100000@localhost> <000101c17718$77d43180$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20011127104635.Y15780-100000@localhost> <20011127164937.A605@starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20011127162010.01042450@mail.sage-american.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:20:10PM -0600, jacks@sage-american.com wrote: > Bob: Just because they are doing it doesn't justify it.... it's because > their survival is on the edge that they are trying very hard to satisfy > those customers who complain. I know at least one of the largest ISPs who > will tell you that while they understand spam is undesirable, they "are > still trying to figure out a method of dealing with it"... that was a long > time ago and nothing yet. > > They recognize the dilemma of filtering emails for customers will make some > unhappy and not filtering on some basis will make some unhappy.... alas, > the financial outlook for the small ISP is rather bleak in trying not to > lose a much-needed customer... but, not only because of spam, but a loss of > a single customer means much more to the small company than the large one > everytime. > > At 04:49 PM 11.27.2001 -0500, Bob Hall wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:48:29AM -0800, David Kirchner wrote: > >> What about the extra price involved in maintaining the filters, filtering > >> out spam that got past the filters, etc? Storage that does nothing but sit > >> there and occasionally gets backed up (even though it's not common to back > >> up a mail spool, I think, due to its nature) vs. employees maintaining > >> lists, reading spam, inputing additional filters, etc - I think I can see > >> which is cheaper. :-) > > > >There's a relatively small, local ISP in my area called Erols. They > >keep three people on staff to deal with spam. (Check their web site.) > >Erols competes on price and is too small to have money to waste on > >something that doesn't either return a profit or save more money than > >it costs. If it's cheaper to ignore spam, why do small ISPs with > >razor thin margins bother to deal with it aggressively? What you are saying (up there at the top, instead of here at the end), is that having an ISP that deals with spam is sufficiently valuable to customers that they are willing to pay a little extra to cover the cost. I don't beleive that there are enough customers who know enough about the issue to pay for the service. As I said, Erols competes on price, which means that they attract customers by being cheaper that the next ISP. I don't believe they would be pursuing spam if it didn't reduce their costs. Bob Hall To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011127200100.A809>