Re: IM2000 Won't Be Worth It

Bruce Kingsbury <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Apparently only 50% of email is spam, so your question is pointless.

> over 90% of my email is spam.

My commiserations.

> Besides, even if 'only' 50% of email is spam, which do you think ISP's 
> are going to be happier to store; 200M of inbound email; of which half 
> at least (not everyone wants letters from Granny either) is unwanted, or 
> 100M of outbound email, 100% of which was considered worthy of the 
> disk-space it occupies by one of our own paying customers.

You forgot "100M of outbound email, plus a greatly increased support
workload and dissatisfaction from customers, due to the increased
effort required to get to their email".

> Personally; I think IM2000 is doomed, but not because of storage costs. 
> It's doomed because even if you could persuade the entire internet to 
> switch to a new system, the next level of spam will simply become 
> billions of 'mail waiting' announcements pointing to pwn3d cable-modem 
> servers.

Exactly my point. It is the message notifications that cause 90% of
the cost to the recipient, and message notifications are easier to
send than SMTP messages.