Re: Inexpensive anti-spamware/anti-verminware tactic

>James Craig Burley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Current users don't see the intrinsic costs of operating an SMTP mail
>> > infrastrucue becase all of the costs are just lumped in with their ISP or
>> > hosting fees.
>> 
>> Wait'll mail system administrators get a better idea of what it'll take to
>> operate an *outgoing* message store!
>
>Mail system admins will prefer it.  It's a lot easier to tell a customer they
>have to pay for outgoing traffic than for incoming, unsolicited traffic.

That's true.

It remains to be seen whether too many customers will insist on having
storage for incoming, unsolicited traffic anyway, so they can be
assured of being able to read email that's sitting in their in-boxes.

(I wonder if there might be any lawsuits claiming false advertising
related to IM2000: "My ISP said I didn't have to pay for incoming,
unsolicited traffic; they didn't tell me that meant I'd often lose
access to incoming messages, even after I read them!")

-- 
James Craig Burley
Software Craftsperson
<http://www.jcb-sc.com>