"Mark Kent" <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jd5d04-aru.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ian Hilliard <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I believe that ultimately this is where it will need to be done. Even
>>> IF (that's a big IF) every owned Windows spam-bot were removed from
>>> existence, there would still be spam. Spammers would get throw-away ISP
>>> accounts, get legitimate web-hosting (with email access) and use a
>>> variety of other ways to send SPAM.
>>>
>>> Getting a Windows zombie is currently the cheapest way to send SPAM but
>>> there are several other methods they could always turn to. Then again,
>>> it doesn't look like the Zombie-PC is going away anytime soon.
>>>
>>> MTA's should use methods to identify and block spam. When Aunt Milly
>>> starts sending 500,000 emails per day that should be a sign to both the
>>> MTA's and to Milly's ISP that something isn't right.
>>
>> Good idea. ISP's should also start looking at spoofed source addresses on
>> packets coming from end users. This should be relatively easy to detect
>> and
>> block.
>>
>
> Removing Windows from the net would remove the vast majority of spam.
> The problem is, as everyone (trolls) is so keen to forget, Windows. Why
> should an ISP waste their limited time and resources in solving the
> problems of terminating devices? This is insane. It's like suggesting
> that Telcos should fix user's phones for them!
>
> If you want ISPs to filter what's connected, then the ISP will need to
> determine what can be connected. If that's a nice Linux box, then
> there'll be no SPAM, problem solved.
>
> The whole problem with Windows in general is that Microsoft take
> shedloads of profits from selling it, but everyone else is expected to
> pay the price for fixing its problems - why should they?
Let's assume for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that Mark is
100% correct, and the problem is Windows, and eliminating all Windows
machine, and converting them to Linux boxes, would indeed get rid of all
spam (this is, of course, ridiculous, but let's just play along for a bit).
How much are we currently spending to fight spam? A billion dollars a
year? Ten billion? A hundred billion? Somewhere in that range, right?
Between a billion and a hundred billion dollars a year. That's vague enough
that I don't think anyone would argue.
So, how much would it cost to implement Mark's solution? How much would
it cost to take every single Windows machine in the world, and convert it to
Linux? How much would it cost to rewrite all the proprietary software and
port it to Linux? All those businesses which depend on ASP and Visual Basic,
etc.? Let's just say some value X. Some might argue X exceeds the cost to
fight spam. If so, the we can drop Mark's idea right then and there. But
let's pretend a bit further that X is cheaper than whatever we're paying to
fight spam.
Now let's consider Ian's idea. Have the ISPs install some (FOSS?) filter
software. How much is that gonna cost? Actually, my ISP already does
filtering, so in my ISPs case the cost is zero (it's already done). For the
remaining ISPs, how much would it cost? Would it even cost a billion?
- Oliver
|
|
