|
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:08:30 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |
In-Reply-To: |
<p0602040bbc35ed3a4752@[128.118.59.8]> |
Organization: |
University of Notre Dame |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Bill Verity wrote:
> Not really. Listserv sends out X-Spam jobs to other servers to
> warn about possible spam ids. Yesterday I had 69,000 mail files
> in listserv's output queue. Over 57,000 were x-spam jobs to other
> sites. I moved them all aside so the server could have time to
> deliver list mail. I plan to erase them. Not sure how we got so
> far behind. We have been hit pretty hard recently with spams and
> viruses.
> --
Back in the days when spammers cranked out hundreds, thousands, tens of
thousands of messages with the same return address, the X-SPAM jobs served
a useful purpose. In this day and age, when most spammers seem to be using
products that crank out individual messages to individual recipients with a
different return address on each message, I have to wonder whether the benefit
provided by the X-SPAM communications still outweighs the overhead of handling
them.
Before we migrated our LISTSERV service from a woefully underpowered box, we
discussed the possibility of switching from NETWORKED mode to STANDALONE mode,
just so we could eliminate the overhead of non-distribution jobs from other
servers.
--
Paul Russell
Senior Systems Administrator
University of Notre Dame
|
|
|