On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 21:11 +1300, Derek Smithies wrote: > 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.
Yes, all valid points. Perhaps the answer is this: If ISP's are going to filter your mail, and charge for it, they should have a sufficiently grunty system to make sure mail passes through quickly. I have seen mail to this list that has spooled for hours, even days. It's simply unacceptable. Maybe attachments should be banned, there are methods of transferring files that were actually designed for that purpose (ftp, http, scp, bittorrent etc)
