[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: spamd vs extremely determined spammer



Brian Keefer wrote:
> Mmmm, not necessarily.  It would take pretty much every MX host on the
> Internet to make a significant impact on spammers with dedicated
> equipment, such as the IronPort A60 that can maintain (it claims)
> 10,000 simultaneous connections.
So can my old 486/66 with enough memory. If you mean maintain 10,000 live,
active SMTP connections then great. So ? Economics is at the backend. SPAM
is only associated with viral (i.e. distributed) transmission because is
makes things cheap; If the professional marketeer / Spammer can afford
legitimate infrastructure, then they probably have some economic value
proposition that makes the need to use random targetting unviable. A bit
like legalising drugs should get rids of the problems created by drug
dealers - but not the other negatives associated with the end product.
> The spammers that don't use dedicated Spam MTAs (and IronPort is by
> far not the only one) are using compromised boxen on broadband, so
> they don't even have to pay for the bandwidth or other resources.
There is a bit of altruism here too - every connection you absorb and waste
the time of is one connection that doesn't go somewhere else. I am not sure
anyone has done any valid studies, but I wonder what the cost increase needs
to be to make much of the "1 in 1,000,000 responses" SPAM uneconomical ? 50%
? 100% ? And is this increase in costs solvable technically, without
allowing a monopoly to reinvent Internet e-mail ?
This is now way off list. Sorry.
Peter