>> * It takes a lot less time and effort to figure out when someone is
>> spamming and who they are, since everything is occurring on your mail
>> server.
>
>This is not a benefit to the customer.
False. It saves time (read: money) on the admin side of things, allowing
you to do other things with the customer's money than try to figure out
when people are spamming.
>> * It allows the ISP to take a pro-active role in spam prevention.
It's
>> fairly simple to write a shell script that checks the mail queue every
>> few minutes, or sees how many connections occurred, and send an alert
>> based on that.
>
>This is not a benefit to the customer.
False. See above.
>> All of these measures benefit the customers as much as the admins, in
>> terms of the savings in time and resources needed to deal with spam.
>
>No, they don't. They benefit the admins in the amount of time and
energy
>they have to spend dealing with outgoing spam, something that in a
>well-run ISP the legitimate customers of the ISP should never notice.
Huh? Time and energy == money. If the ISP is spending all its time and
money watching out for spam, they don't have any left to add new features
that customers want.
>Don't fool yourself. The benefit to the customer in blocking port 25
>outbound is basically nonexistent; it's entirely about administrative
>resources devoted to keeping one's site from abusing the Internet. It
may
>be necessary, but you can't sell it as a feature.
Methinks you've never actually worked in this business. Perhaps you
can't "sell" the feature, no. But it makes the business more efficient
and competitive by taking better advantage of scarce resources (and yes,
resources are quite scarce in this industry). This is a Good Thing for
everyone involved.
As for the "nonexistent" benefits, I think I'll be the judge of that.
shag
