I'm going to make a suggestion which I realize that today there isn't any
easy way to do this. However, I want to throw this out because I think if
we could figure out how to do it, I think the spam problem will go away.
Anytime anyone sends a mail to my server, I want to be paid 2 cents.
2
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
What I envision is some sort of micropayment protocol extension to SNMP.
-
Make that SMTP :) I guess I've been working on network monitoring too
much recently.
-
From a forward to me on the DDos stuff...this might shed some light on the
DDos problem, if not sorry for the bandwidth.
begin forward
[Note: I just noticed last night, after giving a talk on this incident, that
several threads on the SANS Unisog list going back as far as February
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
I'm going to make a suggestion which I realize that today there isn't any
easy way to do this. However, I want to throw this out because I think if
we could figure out how to do it, I think the spam problem will go away.
Anytime anyone
On Fri, 3 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have data on approximate amount of this extra mail bandwidth due to
spam per user? Actually lets be more exact, can some of you with 10,000
real user mail accounts reply how much traffic your mail server is using
and if you have spam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It does not cost very little to recieve spam.
It costs the end-user very little to recieve spam.
I'll echo Paul's comments about the cost of my time. In my case, a
half hour a day seems about right (compared to Paul's hour a day). I
suspect you may have a very
At the moment I'm actually interested in statistics on size of spam
messages as compared to average size of mail message to try to caclulate
amount of mail bandwdith they really waste...
My own calculations show around 27% spam email and I'v seen statistics
from 20-30% from others (someone
On the subject of uRPF, I thought I should point out that Juniper just
added support for it in JunOS 5.3. The news seems to have been obscured
by the T640, but I think its a pretty big deal.
One less excuse for the people who still aren't RPF filtering their
customers (you know who you are). Go
In the referenced message, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
for single-homed customers, simple uRPF
for multihomed customers, acl exceptions based upon their registered
IRR-policy, since the customer should already be registering in the IRR
you
At 08:21 PM 03-05-02 -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
456 05/03 Big Brother Protect your family on the InternetHTML BOD
457 05/03 Big Brother Protect your family on the InternetHTML BOD
458 05/03 Big Brother Protect your family on the InternetHTML BOD
459 05/03 Big Brother
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:57:04AM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo Scott!
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote:
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
trollishly
What do you guess for the amortized cost/spam?
/trollishly
a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
theft, no matter how microscopic the payment might be. we all know what
(they) are, now we're just arguing about the price.
I do find it amusing
I've been roasted privately and called naive in thinking that pay-per-mail
is a valid solution.
Let me first say that the $0.02 I pulled out of the air was derived
simply by taking the $80/hr I bill to clients and dividing that by 3600
(number of seconds in an hour) thus $0.022. I'd say that
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Avleen Vig wrote:
Ha! I've been in Burbank (in the Valley north of LA) for 7 months now, I
moved here from London. I've looked and looked and looked for *ANYTHING*
other than the odd gas station or supermarket open passed 9pm!
??
Plenty of gas stations around here open
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote:
anyone out there before I go whining to MAPS, et al.
Good luck. Roadrunner is a (presumed paying) MAPS customer:
Eddy, contact me off-list, I have a contact at RR.
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away
is hopelessly naieve.
Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
mail spool is my property. Do
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
mail spool is my property. Do the math.
Your car is your private property as well, but if you park it in a public
place, with the engine running, and offer every passerby the
Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c
for each email she sent. Where does that cause the problems you are
talking about?
I send a lot more mail than grandma does.
--
Eric A. Hall
I want to clarify this a bit, before I get flamed (not that I'm not going
to anyways).
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
The people in the middle would get *nothing* beyond what they are getting
today.
Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c for
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
We're trying to discourage bulk emailers, not individuals.
Then the way to do this is to make the cost of sending mass mail more
expensive than sending only a few here and there. In short, we need a way to
prevent the use of the $19.95
facetious
Hey! Where's my reply? I'm in the hole $.04 on this thread now!
Right! No more mail to you until you send me two messages!
/facetious
Then we all move to some other medium that doesn't cost money -- and then
the spammers follow us there too.
Eric A. Hall wrote:
Forrest W.
Theft/Taxes nearly the same . ;-) JimL
Really? What's the difference?
I was giving the thief the benefit of doubt ;-) . JimL
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
See the part on public goods problem and Pareto optimality :)
--vadim
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
maximum number of recipients on any given email to some low number, say 5?
A customer reaches
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c
for each email she sent. Where does that cause the problems you are
talking about?
I send a lot more mail than grandma does.
Yes, but even if you send one a day and she never
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
maximum number of recipients on any given
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
something else that will.
Define doesn't work?
Yes there is still spam - but the laws are in all cases
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:22:35PM -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Ask people in those states which have anti-spam laws how many fewer
spam messages they receive than before.
Although responding to this message puts me back to -$.04, I will point
out that the junk fax law worked pretty
ben hubbard wrote:
why not instead lobby for a federal law, and enforcement of that
law, along with a centralized and well admin'd blacklist (who's
operations would be funded in part by proceeds from enforcement of
antispam laws).
Actually, a well-written law wouldn't need funding. MAPS
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
maximum number of recipients on any
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Gregory Hicks wrote:
money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per
packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end
user to filter properly and or dress that delete key. I always shut
[...snip...]
The problem with
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
Well the costs you mentioned with aol seem high
Not when you consider how much time and money AOL has sunk into the
development of their mail system. They are the only company that has to
scale their operations to the size to which they scale, and
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
In the referenced message, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
For multihomed customers, these sets of prefixes should be identical, just
like with single homed customers. The only time when those sets of
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away
is hopelessly naieve.
Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
mail spool is my property. Do the math.
Indeed, the courts have already ruled
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Faxes are a little bit easier to trace than email.
Sometimes. If the faxer is identifying s/h/itself properly.
--
Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek)
JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET
34 matches
Mail list logo
