> 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 The rationale for X-SPAM jobs is no longer valid.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