Re: IM2000 Won't Be Worth It

Jon Ribbens <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > We are not just talking about spam related storage.  If presently your
> > ISP uses 100G storage, it will need 50G for IM2000 since it does not
> > have to store incoming messages.
> 
> Uh, quite, it has to store outgoing messages instead. What's the
> difference?

Its users are not generating fifty to a hundred million pieces of outgoing
spam per day, which might be what a large SMTP-based ISP has to worry about
receiving and storing today.

Ask an ISP which they would prefer to have to store:

1) The current incoming spam-by-the-truckload, from random servers and malware
all across the 'net, totalling in some cases hundreds of messages per user per
day.  My personal spam load was over a thousand a day when I started having to
deny SMTP access to large parts of China, Korea, Algeria, and a few
particularly clueless American and European ISPs.

2) The five or ten outgoing letters-to-granny-and-friends that one of their
typical customers might generate.

Consider this particularly in light of the fact that their paying customers
are yelling at them for (1), but will not complain in the least about (2).

Charle
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon                           <[email protected]>
GPL'ed software available at:     http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------