On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Paul Russell wrote:

> On 11/14/2005 22:49, Andrew Bosch wrote:
>> We haven't noticed, but then our mail volume is not as great as Notre
>> Dame's. Perhaps it is possible to split the WA from the Listserv
>> installation and have it run on another host?
>>
>
> 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.
>
> The rationale for X-SPAM jobs is no longer valid.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?

What you say makes sense. If the X-SPAM feature has value at some
sites, an option to disable it in subsequent LISTSERV versions should
be considered by L-Soft's developers. Such an option would benefit
sites where X-SPAM is a hinderance without producing undesirable
results where using X-SPAM is okay. I personally have not found X-
SPAM to be a liability, but I can see where other LISTSERV site
maintainers would.