[ILUG] Slightly OT. The which ISP Question!
jm at jmason.org
Mon Feb 20 16:03:12 GMT 2006
Thomas Bridge writes:
> On 2/20/06, Justin Mason <jm at jmason.org> wrote:
> > That hasn't exactly made the case for capping *easier*, you know.
> > If an ISP allows third parties to increase a customer's bills without
> > their consent, then the customer is getting screwed. Just because an ISP
> > doesn't have a way to measure the abusive traffic, doesn't mean that it's
> > therefore OK to let the customer pay for it, as a result!
> The customer is going to pay for it either way. Either directly, or
> indirectly. Most abusive traffic will come accross those transit
> connections I mentioned earlier.
> Virus/worm traffic doesn't represent a very high percentage of traffic anyway,
Taken as a percentage of mail traffic, it's very high -- estimates vary
but a range of between 80-95% seems likely, if you combine spam, virus,
phish, and blowback mail traffic.
I can accept that SMTP traffic is minor compared to non-SMTP traffic,
though, esp. in bandwidth consumption. I have no figures on that.
More information about the ILUG