> > warning, i'm answering an obvious troll from an obvious spammer. [...] > > In other words, you disagree with me, but for reasons I won't go into, > you cannot resist the urge to reply. actually, i can speak for myself, there's no need to interpret for me. i'm calling you a troll because you're urging people to pay no attention to the costs, to just hit delete, and to avoid filtering since you claim that the costs of false positives are too high. that's three for three. those are the three key issues that every spammer-in-troll raises whenever they join public debates on the issue of spam. usually it takes a week, but you did it all in 36 hours. congrats? > > my t1 costs me $552 per month in pac bell service fees. > > Is it 100% busy? If not, spam effectively costs you nothing, since I > assume you pay a flat rate for a fixed, continuously-available bandwidth. you act as if headroom would have no value. maybe that's true for you but again i'll suggest that you avoid trying to interpret for me unless you're offering to pay me $552 per month in perpetuity. > > how nice for you. here's the report of spam that's reached me and had > > to be deleted in the last 15 days: > > If spam is so expensive, why are you logging and analyzing it? Doesn't > that raise the cost? I just throw it away. in order to get 20:1 rejection rates at the smtp level, i have to analyze the stuff. since the major cost is in receiving it, the minor inconvenience of storing and analyzing it is pretty low. the better my analysis, the less i receive, so it's all about risk-management in this unpoliced metaworld. -- Paul Vixie