>Sure, we should go out of our way  to follow the rules IEMMC have set
for
>their spam service. After all, they are paying us for this, right?

I did ask if I was missing something, and maybe the tone of my message
sounded harsher than I intended or you would appreciate, my apologies
for that.

However, I bought LSoft Listserv Classic to get anti-spamming. That was
the primary reason for my purchase decision.

IEMMC announced publicly their intention to permit SPAM, and I just
assumed that LSoft would have been aware of that happening. Since
anti-spamming is, IMO, the best feature of LSoft Listserv, I thought
LSoft would have proactively sent a spam filter to all Listserv lists
(and please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought my list was receiving
information from LSoft on a regular basis, i.e. daily) to stop messages
with IEMMC's stated header item.

Given that Agis, a not so small backbone ISP, delegated SPAM
responsibility to IEMMC, it would seem that IEMMC is (at least in Agis'
eyes) going to uphold their stated conditions and mechanisms. The result
is that Agis will likely sell a lot more bandwidth as SPAM organizations
move over to them to avoid ISP hassles associated with SPAM. That then
extends to a lot more SPAM being produced, and this stuff should all
contain the IEMMC header item (or so the theory goes).

Now I don't claim to know how your anti-spamming works, what its capable
of (i.e. what limitations it might have), or even all the intricacies of
SMTP, my apologies for my ignorance. Maybe this is easily handled in
sendmail, my apologies for being an NT customer who doesn't use it.

Cheers,
Russ
R.C. Consulting, Inc. - NT/Internet Security
owner of the NTBugTraq mailing list:
http://ntbugtraq.rc.on.ca/index.html