Larry Price ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote*: > >On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Bob Miller wrote: > >> Internetweek >> ISP Floats Plan To Legalize Spam >> http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6900346 >> >> > Banning spam is an impossible task, and instead a mechanism must be >> > developed to control bulk commercial e-mail and make the senders pay >> > for the infrastructure costs of distribution, according to an >> > Internet service provider president. > >But this won't touch the spammers who lie, cheat and steal, the article >talks about charging bulk rates to spammers and using the revenue to fund >enforcement. This sounds almost worse from a privacy perspective because >paying customers would demand address verification, and demographics. > > The 2 spam filtering solutions he mentions are $19,000.00 and $27,000.00. One could make a nice living selling SpamAssassin (or choose your favorite filter) based filter boxes for $1,900.00.
He called it an arms race. I supposed it sorta, kinda is. ISPs have it easier than SPAMers do because these filtering solutions are collabortive. All an ISP has to do is run an update once a month if they are aggresive or whenever a user complains if filtering spam is an afterthought. I think it can even be automated. _______________________________________________ Eug-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
