|
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:50:43 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
I have only a few hundred lists and no performance problem with average
cpu less than 1%. My shutdown statistics show many more jobs in the
"Other" category than all others combined; is this where x-spam jobs are
counted?
Does Notre Dame get more x-spam jobs than I do? If not, then maybe poor
web performance w/ x-spam is just a symptom and not the cause of the ND
problem?
Here are my stats from yesterday, fwiw:
* The average CPU time used by LISTSERV for this session is 0.1%. Since
* LISTSERV was last rebooted (on 13 Nov 2005 at 23:58, ie 1 day and 0 minute
* ago), the following requests have been processed:
*
* - Interactive messages from users 1000
* - Postings to distribution lists 289 (55268 recipients)
* - DISTRIBUTE jobs (internal) 559
* - DISTRIBUTE jobs (from network) 3544
* - Other incoming files 8331
*
* - Database searches (interactive) 26
* - Database searches (batch mode) None
cheers, wayne
Paul Russell wrote, in part, on 11/15/2005 10:11 AM:
> 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 The rationale for X-SPAM jobs is no longer valid.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?
>
> --
> Paul Russell
> Senior Systems Administrator
> OIT Messaging Services Team
> University of Notre Dame
|
|
|