Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:43:23 -0500
|
> I believe this suggestion has been offered in the past, and I believe
> that the response has always been that it is not possible to do
> this. The problem is not that the server is overloaded; the problem
> appears to be two-fold: (1) everything must go through lsv and lsv
> is single-threaded, and (2) inbound messages in the listserv/spool
> directory are given precedence over pending web requests.
I'm not convinced that (2) is strictly true any more. In informal
inspection, I think I've seen web requests jumped to the front of
the queue.
> The rationale for X-SPAM jobs is no longer valid. Spammers used to send
> hundreds, even thousands of messages with the same sender address, so
> blocking or quarantining all messages with a sender address seen on
> spam was effective. Spammers' techniques have changed, but LISTSERV
> is still using the same old model that used to work "back in the old
> days". I think it is time to review that model to determine whether it
> is still valid in the current spam environment. It appears to me that
> the cost of this feature significantly outweighs the benefit. Does
> anyone share this view?
The LISTSERV spam blocker still stops significant spam for us.
While spammers have developed new techniques, they continue to use
the old ones also. I presume this is because either (a) they continue
to work for some targets; or (b) new spammers appear and have to work
their way up the learning curve.
Dennis Boone
H-Net / Michigan State University
|
|
|