[ILUG] Slightly OT. The which ISP Question!

[Justin Mason]

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,

really?

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.

--j.