The thing I find funniest about this statement is that it can apply to just about everybody. However, keeping in mind the article that spawned this, it's not about you individually, it's about the ISPs. The reality is that all ISPs are under siege by spam, the larger ones can throw money at the problem and call it inconvient, the smaller ISPs who server communities in areas the AOLs and Earthlinks in the world do not don't really have that option. In my opinion there has to be a new approach to handling SMTP. Perhaps peering agreements where each member is financially responsible for spam comming from their network should be the way to go. Then at least the problem can be addressed where it should be, from the sources not on the victims end.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing I find funniest about this statement is that it can apply to just about everybody. However, keeping in mind the article that spawned this, it's not about you individually, it's about the ISPs. The reality is that all ISPs are under siege by spam, the larger ones can throw money at the problem and call it inconvient, the smaller ISPs who server communities in areas the AOLs and Earthlinks in the world do not don't really have that option. In my opinion there has to be a new approach to handling SMTP. Perhaps peering agreements where each member is financially responsible for spam comming from their network should be the way to go. Then at least the problem can be addressed where it should be, from the sources not on the victims end.