On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Paul Russell wrote: > 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 The rationale for X-SPAM jobs is no longer valid.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? What you say makes sense. If the X-SPAM feature has value at some sites, an option to disable it in subsequent LISTSERV versions should be considered by L-Soft's developers. Such an option would benefit sites where X-SPAM is a hinderance without producing undesirable results where using X-SPAM is okay. I personally have not found X- SPAM to be a liability, but I can see where other LISTSERV site maintainers would.