Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:39:57 -0600 From: jacks@sage-american.com To: "Bob Hall" <rjhalljr@starpower.net>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: this spam Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20011127193957.01042450@mail.sage-american.com> In-Reply-To: <20011127200100.A809@starpower.net> References: <3.0.5.32.20011127162010.01042450@mail.sage-american.com> <20011127104635.Y15780-100000@localhost> <000101c17718$77d43180$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20011127104635.Y15780-100000@localhost> <20011127164937.A605@starpower.net> <3.0.5.32.20011127162010.01042450@mail.sage-american.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This thread has about run out of gas for me.... but, one last reply, for Bob's reply to me: I gave two contrasting policies: One is the small, financially weak ISP that bears a cost it rather not have to mess with to deal with spam versus the much bigger, financially sound ISP that has decided not to have that type of overhead cost allocated to monitor spam. Thus, the bigger one with sofisticated financial controls thinks it's more economical to NOT control the spam in the same manner as the small ISP. Without having seen either of their financials, the body language says the cost of monitoring spam probably exceeds the other costs of storage, bandwidth or whatever.... IF and to the extent they truly have any tangible cost effect on the bottom line. The cost of a special staff is most definitely tangible and measureable.... as compared to "X", the other spam control costs, harder to measure. Soooooo, I would guess that small ISP is trying to do something extra in the way of services AND lower pricing in order to keep that customer base and not just compete, but to STAY in business.... for as long as they can... which is becoming harder and harder until they can no longer survive against the bigger ISPs. I for one would NOT want to be a small struggling ISP with skimpy resources in these tougher economic times with more dark clouds ahead..... If and when the bigger ISP REALLY wants more market share (which includes that of the smaller ISP) all they have to do is lower the price and eliminate that pricing edge... then say goodbye to the smaller one who cannot stand to lose too many customers, spam controls or not... That's all for me on this.... thanks for the bandwidth, folks! At 08:01 PM 11.27.2001 -0500, Bob Hall wrote: >On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:20:10PM -0600, jacks@sage-american.com wrote: >> Bob: Just because they are doing it doesn't justify it.... it's because >> their survival is on the edge that they are trying very hard to satisfy >> those customers who complain. I know at least one of the largest ISPs who >> will tell you that while they understand spam is undesirable, they "are >> still trying to figure out a method of dealing with it"... that was a long >> time ago and nothing yet. >> >> They recognize the dilemma of filtering emails for customers will make some >> unhappy and not filtering on some basis will make some unhappy.... alas, >> the financial outlook for the small ISP is rather bleak in trying not to >> lose a much-needed customer... but, not only because of spam, but a loss of >> a single customer means much more to the small company than the large one >> everytime. >> >> At 04:49 PM 11.27.2001 -0500, Bob Hall wrote: >> >On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:48:29AM -0800, David Kirchner wrote: >> >> What about the extra price involved in maintaining the filters, filtering >> >> out spam that got past the filters, etc? Storage that does nothing but sit >> >> there and occasionally gets backed up (even though it's not common to back >> >> up a mail spool, I think, due to its nature) vs. employees maintaining >> >> lists, reading spam, inputing additional filters, etc - I think I can see >> >> which is cheaper. :-) >> > >> >There's a relatively small, local ISP in my area called Erols. They >> >keep three people on staff to deal with spam. (Check their web site.) >> >Erols competes on price and is too small to have money to waste on >> >something that doesn't either return a profit or save more money than >> >it costs. If it's cheaper to ignore spam, why do small ISPs with >> >razor thin margins bother to deal with it aggressively? > >What you are saying (up there at the top, instead of here at the end), >is that having an ISP that deals with spam is sufficiently valuable to >customers that they are willing to pay a little extra to cover the cost. >I don't beleive that there are enough customers who know enough about >the issue to pay for the service. As I said, Erols competes on price, >which means that they attract customers by being cheaper that the next >ISP. I don't believe they would be pursuing spam if it didn't reduce >their costs. > >Bob Hall > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > Best regards, Jack L. Stone, Server Admin Sage-American http://www.sage-american.com jacks@sage-american.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.20011127193957.01042450>