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 The rationale for X-SPAM jobs is no longer valid.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