[Disclaimer: I do not intend to aim at Savvis in particular. It just happens that they make the news today. For all practical purposes, s/Savvis/your_favorite_operator]
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3634572.stm>: Mr McCormick promised that within the next 10 days all spammers will be taken off their network.
I think this is a bunch of PR BS. They say they'll do it, but in the real world nobody throws two million bucks a month (*) in the toilet like this, they know it, and here's why: 1. Although some spammers may be dumb, out of 148 of them there are a lot that are actually smart and more than a few that are very smart. Just because we don't like spammers means they are dumb. Face it, people: spammers have outsmarted us every step of the way so far. A lot of us have tried to get rid of them, and obviously failed, because we still get craploads of it. 2. Thanks to our marvelous legal system, the smart spammer will seek a TRO against Savvis preventing them to cut them loose within 10 days, make it last a few months, and finally double-flip Savvis about the bill for the last few months. Nothing new here either; spammers do not pay their bills when it can be avoided. 3. Even a blatant violation of the AUP does not shield from a TRO. Why I say this is a bunch of PR BS is that many people at Savvis are totally aware of what I wrote above. The sad part is: although many people at Savvis are totally aware of what I wrote above, there also are a few execs that can't find the power switch on their own computer without the help desk that don't, and the bottom line is that this is going cost Savvis 2 million bucks a month for some months plus another million bucks a month in legal fees from law experts that don't know jack but are good at kissing exec @55. In the end, it turns out to be simple mathematics: 10 begin 20 Savvis is going to spend $10M-$20M to buy a "clean reputation". 30 ## Some exec bozo thinks that doing so will save the world. 40 ## Regardless of 30, some guys there actually know exactly 50 ## what they are doing, they just manipulate the bozo as a 60 ## fuse in case something does not go according to plan. 70 ## I don't challenge the strategy. A few million bucks to 80 ## look clean actually is a heck of a good deal if one is 90 ## big enough to afford it; sacrificing the gullible bozo 100 ## that bought the BS about saving the world by getting 110 ## rid of spammers is class-1 collateral. (**) 120 41% of the spammers will get 4-8 months free. 130 41% of the spammers will stay with Savvis. (***) 140 18% of the spammers will not survive the renumbering. 150 The next one will gladly host the 41% in 120 for a million bucks a month (for a while). 160 s/Savvis/the next one 170 goto 10 Read the subject line again: who's next? I don't compliment Savvis for cleaning up. If they have to do so, it's because they (or C&W, or whoever they acquired) have been complacent about hosting spammers in the first place. After someone pays the bill, I hope said someone will pay more attention to topics such as qualifying customers by looking them up in the BBB database and related issues. Nevertheless, this _is_ good. Trouble is, spammers have incorporated it in their cost of doing business a long time ago. One more time, too little too late. So, out of 148 Savvis spammers, 18 of them (the dumbest ones) will not survive the move/renumbering at a cost of US$18M. Savvis' money, not mine. Who's next? Michel. (*) Just think about how many 4-port-OC192-IR for their brand stinking new CRS-1 they could buy with 2 million bucks a month ;-) (**) Heard first hand from a three-star general: "in the infantry, the cheapest hardware to replace is personnel." (***) Legal compromise. Even if there is a political will to get all spammers out, economic realities, legal bills and battles of "experts" will eventually quick in, and the good ol' "a bad settlement is better than a good trial" will prevail in number of cases. Spammers will not spam as openly as they used to, Savvis will keep a million bucks a months revenue, and everyone is happy.