Re: minimizing bandwidth taken be spam delivery attempts even when identifiable by "To:" address
Paul Johnson wrote:
It sounds like you're already at a spot where you can't reasonably reduce
bandwidth used by email any further.
Yeah, that seems to be true, unfortunately.
For example, does your network have a caching HTTP proxy? If
not, you're literally flushing bandwidth down the toilet.
That statement's a little strong (untrue). It's only true if or when
something is making HTTP requests that could be serviced from the
cache.
(By the way: Ouch! Don't abuse the word "literally" like that.)
> Most organizations have far, far more to gain from caching HTTP than
> from cutting corners on email.
Ah--now I see the assumption/perception that led to your statement
above. No, I'm not (representing) an organization--my questions weren't
about a machine for an organization; they were just for a single-user
machine.
Daniel
Reply to: