Who's to say they're not operating at a loss and covering the expenses with ads displayed in the margins of the e-mail webapp?
Also, no, this isn't the only reason people get so worked up about spam (though 2/3 waste of resources is pretty bad no matter how you cut it).
Take a look at the other thread comment here. "Trespass to Chattels" is what comes up here. The spammers are abusing a resource provided by a particular entity (i.e. the ISP) for a purpose it was not intended for.
Personally, I'd like to see some data on your claims.
Assuming you're right, though, note that the computational time spent processing spam is at least as important as the actual total number of bits sent after the headers are read. If 2/3 of the time is spent processing spam message, that slows down the delivery time of other messages unless you increase your overall bandwith (i.e. number of computers processing requests, link speed, etc.). Moreover, the extra machine cost isn't just for an extra stick of RAM or two. All the extra I/O from disk can reduce the mail server's hard disk life, introducing a recurring cost as well. ISPs need to rent larger machine rooms or maintain them on site with greater cooling capacity necessary to keep everything from frying.
With all this extra hardware and network overhead, "Mom and Pop" ISPs can't hope to compete against the big guys who can afford to spend a bit of extra cash on better hardware, and we're left with a sparser set of choices as a consumer.
And there are lots of cost associated with doing business, many of which are the result of people being thoughtless. Nobody gets as worked up about those.
They do if it causes resource needs to triple.
The "million dollar issue" isn't directly related to the end users, it's related to the ISPs. When 66-75% of all e-mail through their servers is spam(article), more than two thirds of the processor/bandwith capacity used is wasted. In order to keep the remaining one third (or lower) running at the speed they want users to experience, they have to pay for at least three times the computational capacity that they would otherwise have to. This cost, of course, gets passed on to the consumer.
Just because it's there doesn't mean you have access to do whatever you want with it.
For example, most schools and universities have message boards (of the physical variety) scattered around their campuses. People post signs about upcoming events, items for sale, etc. If one person, however, were to put up dozens of identical fliers on all of the message boards, covering all other messages, the school could get that person in trouble for abusing the system.
Communal communication mediums are owned by a specific person or entity that grants specific rights to the people making use of the resource. We have to take into account that the server is owned and operated by that entity and we must abide by their rules. Anything else is "Trespass to Chattels", as it were.
How about taking a page out of "Last Crusade" and having multiple "submit" links, only one of which works. In plain text near the links, say something like "click the blue triangle submit button to not have your post marked as spam." As long as there aren't too many choices to wade through, users won't be terribly inconvenienced.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's to say they're not operating at a loss and covering the expenses with ads displayed in the margins of the e-mail webapp? Also, no, this isn't the only reason people get so worked up about spam (though 2/3 waste of resources is pretty bad no matter how you cut it). Take a look at the other thread comment here. "Trespass to Chattels" is what comes up here. The spammers are abusing a resource provided by a particular entity (i.e. the ISP) for a purpose it was not intended for.
Personally, I'd like to see some data on your claims.
Assuming you're right, though, note that the computational time spent processing spam is at least as important as the actual total number of bits sent after the headers are read. If 2/3 of the time is spent processing spam message, that slows down the delivery time of other messages unless you increase your overall bandwith (i.e. number of computers processing requests, link speed, etc.). Moreover, the extra machine cost isn't just for an extra stick of RAM or two. All the extra I/O from disk can reduce the mail server's hard disk life, introducing a recurring cost as well. ISPs need to rent larger machine rooms or maintain them on site with greater cooling capacity necessary to keep everything from frying.
With all this extra hardware and network overhead, "Mom and Pop" ISPs can't hope to compete against the big guys who can afford to spend a bit of extra cash on better hardware, and we're left with a sparser set of choices as a consumer.
And there are lots of cost associated with doing business, many of which are the result of people being thoughtless. Nobody gets as worked up about those.
They do if it causes resource needs to triple.
The "million dollar issue" isn't directly related to the end users, it's related to the ISPs. When 66-75% of all e-mail through their servers is spam(article), more than two thirds of the processor/bandwith capacity used is wasted. In order to keep the remaining one third (or lower) running at the speed they want users to experience, they have to pay for at least three times the computational capacity that they would otherwise have to. This cost, of course, gets passed on to the consumer.
Just because it's there doesn't mean you have access to do whatever you want with it.
For example, most schools and universities have message boards (of the physical variety) scattered around their campuses. People post signs about upcoming events, items for sale, etc. If one person, however, were to put up dozens of identical fliers on all of the message boards, covering all other messages, the school could get that person in trouble for abusing the system.
Communal communication mediums are owned by a specific person or entity that grants specific rights to the people making use of the resource. We have to take into account that the server is owned and operated by that entity and we must abide by their rules. Anything else is "Trespass to Chattels", as it were.
How about taking a page out of "Last Crusade" and having multiple "submit" links, only one of which works. In plain text near the links, say something like "click the blue triangle submit button to not have your post marked as spam." As long as there aren't too many choices to wade through, users won't be terribly inconvenienced.