>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