Hi, On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Nick Rout wrote: > > the real problem IMHO is ISP's filtering mail instead of passing it on. > It is CPU intensive, you only have to look at the RECEIVED headers of > some messages to see how long they spend in spamfilter.$ISP.com > > Make the end user filter their own spam, at least then the processing is > distributed, ie my cpu filters my mail rather than forcing ot through a > bottleneck at $ISP.
Holy wars here. I will define the word spam to include the virus ridden emails which have the 50K attachments. If the isp chooses to provide an additional service, and charge for it, then all power to them. We do live in a free world. Further, the ISP is in a good position to determine the spam from the non spam - they have access to a large body of email. ===== Personally, I prefer the isp to filter for spam. If I am on a low bandwidth connection, and the first act on logging in is to download megabytes of spam, I will be "unhappy". Much better for the isp to filter out "most" of the spam first. Then, my dial in time is not consumed by downloading spam. Derek. -- Derek Smithies Ph.D. Any fool can write code that IndraNet Technologies Ltd. a computer can understand. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good programmers write code ph +64 3 365 6485 that humans can understand. Web: http://www.indranet-technologies.com/ Martin Fowler
