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 The rationale for X-SPAM jobs is no longer valid.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