why don't ISP's scan email?

[geeksRus]

is it the sheer volume? is it cost? is it not practical? is it a privacy issue? seems to me that virii and worms could be stopped dead in their tracks if this was required for all mail servers. what do i not know that makes this a stoopid question? i really want to know.

[TripleRLtd]

Yeah geeks, I want to know, too!! Volume should not matter. Practicality should not matter...in fact, I would think it could be a great selling point. Privacy? Nah! So, it must be cost...
...or, it is all a conspiracy. -eek-

[geeksRus]

one reason i ask is that while i was looking at the forums i received two viruses...

[GrandDad]

is it the sheer volume? is it cost? is it not practical? is it a privacy issue? seems to me that virii and worms could be stopped dead in their tracks if this was required for all mail servers. what do i not know that makes this a stoopid question? i really want to know.
I said it was a combination of what you said .
Some online email sites do scan , like MSN an such .
I'd say tho its mostly cost on thier part if I had to guess .

[geeksRus]

Vexira is $300...so i would say its not cost.

[GrandDad]

Vexira is $300...so i would say its not cost.
Would that be thier total cost for say a year , including maintaining it and all ?

[TechZ]

Mostly all online e-mail co's scan attachments for viruses, our local monopoly also scans incoming and outgoing mail for viruses(The only thing that i can find good about them).

[craigmodius]

I would think cost is the main factor. You have to figure in alotta cases they'd have to pay for an AV license per mailbox/user.

Many times people that sign up with their ISP don't even use their email, they just use yahoo or hotmail etc. So the ISP is paying for a license for an email account that doesn't get used.

Then factor in support costs etc.

[Atodini]

The spam filter I use has a "bounce" facility. Most bounces fail due to "invalid return address".

If isp's automatically checked all mail for valid return addresses, which, I suspect, would not be difficult to action, then spam & viruses would seriously decrease immediately, I mean nobody with half a brain would send spam / viruses from a traceable address would they?? (Don't answer that!!)

I appreciate that many legitimate organisations (including Windrivers) routinely send out newsletters etc with no return path but it would again be fairly simple to excuse these from the check....

John

[Stalemate]

My ISP offer AV services for a small surcharge.

[corturbra]

I figure as we all pay (I'm assuming) for internet access that some of that revenue could be used to stop the obvious crap that comes in.

They could call it an investment, after all if they stop the amount of e-mail flowing through their servers then surely their maintenance costs would drop? It's a win-win situation, except for the spammers.

I have to mention that wanadoo (formerly freeserve) has recently started adding a *** spam *** prefix to e-mails it thinks are spam. The account I have with them I don't pay for (webmail) and I am grateful to them for that. Now I look into my spam folder once a week and inform them which e-mail is genuine. Good thing? Spam now never reaches my inbox on my PC through this account.

[TechZ]

/RANT i truly hate ppl whom i know that forward junk chain letters and add teh addresses to the cc instead of the bcc box. read teh e-mail and u have like a hundreds of addresses on them, if even one those users had a virus that collect addresses from OE, IMAGINE the amount of spam that would generate, idiots. /END RANT