[Declude.JunkMail] Diagnosing from Reverse DNS [[No Reverse DNS]]
Hello, All, If a spam message has a header entry like... X-Note: Sent with HELO [worldvillage.com] from Reverse DNS [[No Reverse DNS]] Does that mean that the message truly had no reverse dns ptr? Or was the Reverse DNS ptr of the message [No Reverse DNS]? It if matters the custom line in GLOBAL.CFG that adds this header is... XINHEADER X-Note: Sent with HELO [%HELO%] from Reverse DNS [%REVDNS%] Thanks In Advance, Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- E-mail scanned for viruses by Nexus (http://www.ntgrp.com/mailscan) --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted
Gee, Me too, this is what I have been complaining about, and submitted an unresolved trouble ticket [INN-34053] since the first 2.x release. I've got it half working by changing my global config to: WEIGHT20weightrangexxxx WEIGHT32weightxxxx fill in your own values for x, my config used to be weight / weight, changing to weightrange / weight *seemed* to help. Fritz Frederick P. Squib, Jr. Network Operations/Mail Administrator Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg http://www.wpa.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html email /\- against microsoft attachments --- [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted
I can agree with you Fritz... We too have had the same issues and in response to David Franco-Rocha message, we DID submit to Declude support our problems with STILL no resolve or further communication about it. [RNJ-98263] Erik -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz Squib Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:44 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted Gee, Me too, this is what I have been complaining about, and submitted an unresolved trouble ticket [INN-34053] since the first 2.x release. I've got it half working by changing my global config to: WEIGHT20weightrangexxxx WEIGHT32weightxxxx fill in your own values for x, my config used to be weight / weight, changing to weightrange / weight *seemed* to help. Fritz Frederick P. Squib, Jr. Network Operations/Mail Administrator Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg http://www.wpa.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html email /\- against microsoft attachments --- [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Diagnosing from Reverse DNS [[No Reverse DNS]]
Hi, It meant it had no Reverse DNS. Instead of a host name (from the PTR), Declude returns the string: [No Reverse DNS] which you bracketed in another set of square brackets. Best Regards Andy -Original Message- If a spam message has a header entry like... X-Note: Sent with HELO [worldvillage.com] from Reverse DNS [[No Reverse DNS]] Does that mean that the message truly had no reverse dns ptr? Or was the Reverse DNS ptr of the message [No Reverse DNS]? --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted
Hi, I don't have a WEIGHT overlap (I had checked that first). In my case, I'm pretty certain it's a matter of ROUTETO outweighing DELETE. I just had another case this morning, and that seems to be the common factor in each one: This mail failed almost every test in the world, yet with weight 36 (wayyy beyond any delete weight) was still being ROUTETO-ed to my Postmaster account. Received: from SMTP32-FWD by Mail.Webhost.HM-Software.com (SMTP32) id A191617F90282EC49; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:03:10 -0500 Received: from 68.150.152.159 [210.205.227.67] by hm-software.com (SMTPD32-8.15) id A91717F90282; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:03:03 -0500 From: lcriRoger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Beam Subject: ìgnore Vìagra, Cìalìs ìs the best! axnev Sender: lcriRoger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:04:10 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Build 10.0.2627 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-RBL-Warning: Suspected SPAM. 210.205.227.67 found in list.dsbl.org. http://dsbl.org/listing?210.205.227.67; X-RBL-Warning: Suspected SPAM. Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?210.205.227.67; X-RBL-Warning: Suspected SPAM. open proxy -- 1067181602 X-RBL-Warning: Suspected SPAM. Open Proxy - http://www.ahbl.org/tools/lookup.php?ip=210.205.227.67; X-RBL-Warning: Suspected SPAM. HTTP Proxy See: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?210.205.227.67; X-Declude-Note: This E-mail was sent from a broken mail client [c004020f]. See: http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c004020f X-Declude-Note: Domain 68.150.152.159 has no MX or A records [0301]. X-RBL-Warning: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam [c004020f]. See: http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c004020f X-Declude: Version 2.0.4.2; D191617f90282ec49.SMD from [No Reverse DNS] [210.205.227.67] X-Declude: Triggered [36] BYPASS19, DSBLSINGLE, SPAMCOP, BLITZEDALL, NJABLPROXIES, AHBLPROXIES, SORBS-HTTP, SORBS-SOCKS, SENDERDB-BLOCK, XBL-DYNA, BADHEADERS, HELOBOGUS, REVDNS, SPAMHEADERS, SNIFFER, POSTMASTER, SPAMDOMAINS, WEIGHTKILL X-Countries: KOREA-KR-destination Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-RCPT-TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: U X-UIDL: 409773318 Best Regards Andy Schmidt HM Systems Software, Inc. 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz Squib Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 08:44 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted Gee, Me too, this is what I have been complaining about, and submitted an unresolved trouble ticket [INN-34053] since the first 2.x release. I've got it half working by changing my global config to: WEIGHT20weightrangexxxx WEIGHT32weightxxxx fill in your own values for x, my config used to be weight / weight, changing to weightrange / weight *seemed* to help. Fritz Frederick P. Squib, Jr. Network Operations/Mail Administrator Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg http://www.wpa.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html email /\- against microsoft attachments --- [This E-mail scanned by Citizens Internet Services with Declude Virus.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues
On 2 Mar 2005 at 18:07, Darin Cox wrote: Hi Darin, 2.05 will pass email that should have been deleted. The total weight may be 3 times your delete weight and the email will still be delivered. Declude tech support is aware of the problem - and as far as I know it is unresolved. I am back to 1.82 -Nick Repost. Just to clarify: Other than the logging issue you referred to, are there any known issues with 2.05? If so, is there a list I can review to determine if we're ready to upgrade? - Original Message - From: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues Great response to the concerns, David. Much appreciated. Just to clarify: Other than the logging issue you referred to, are there any known issues with 2.05? If so, is there a list I can review to determine if we're ready to upgrade? Thanks, Darin. - Original Message - From: David Franco-Rocha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:43 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues No issue reported to us regarding Declude software will ever be considered trivial or unimportant. It is essential that all issues be reported to Declude Support. A number of comments made recently on these lists refer to issues never reported to Declude. It should also be understood that the Declude forums are very informative for finding out from others whether they have experienced similar issues with the software. They are not, however, intended to be a mechanism for reporting problems to us. We have been monitoring the list messages regarding the DELETE action when there is a COPYALL account and we are concerned as to perceptions that there is a problem or issue with the software. There is a difference of opinion on how a COPYALL account should actually function: (a) to receive a copy of every message processed by the mail server, whether legitimate or not; (b) to receive a copy of only those messages for which there is at least one valid delivery. Aside from differing opinions on how the COPYALL account should function, our tests show that individual recipients whose per-user configurations specified DELETE were in fact being deleted from the recipient list and were not receiving the messages. At the same time, however, we discovered that there was information in the log file that would lead one to believe that the recipient was not being deleted. If the last recipient did not have DELETE as the action to take, the last action in the log file would not read DELETE, even if the previous recipient had been deleted. We are making the appropriate changes to the log file to ensure that all actions taken will be accurately recorded. In addition, we are implementing a configurable parameter to allow or disallow actions to apply to the COPYALL account. This release will be available after user testing and acceptance. It is important to know that we respond to each and every issue raised through our support system and also that when making a quote as to what 'Declude' may have said that the correct words are used within the appropriate context. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted
Title: Message Andy Schmidt wrote: The message is NOT whitelisted (see log and header), sothe bypass whitelisting WORKED. The log and headers look differently, if whilelisting is effective. ...assuming that there isn't a bug. There is definitely something strange here and several clear inconsistencies between the log, the headers and your inbox. There's that one bypass whitelisting line that is wrong, and then I would also assume that you are scoring tests such as SNIFFER, INV-URIBL and NJABLDYNA, but it doesn't appear that these scores were added according to your headers, and of course all entries say DELETE but you still got a copy of the message. It appears as if it was being whitelisted in spite of the logs and the headers, either that or the DELETE action was just simply being ignored. I thought it might help to point out what I though was suggestive of the underlying problem. Kevin's post hints at what might be similar or even related incorrect behavior. Once again, I have NO per-user configuration! I fully understood that after you stated it the first time. I think you misread what I wrote. There's no reason to rehash that however. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues
It would be nice Declude would post this information instead of ignoring requests or using not a priority as a result. The DELETE action is not taking the action it should. We too have reverted back to 1.82 as this version seems to be steady for us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues On 2 Mar 2005 at 18:07, Darin Cox wrote: Hi Darin, 2.05 will pass email that should have been deleted. The total weight may be 3 times your delete weight and the email will still be delivered. Declude tech support is aware of the problem - and as far as I know it is unresolved. I am back to 1.82 -Nick Repost. Just to clarify: Other than the logging issue you referred to, are there any known issues with 2.05? If so, is there a list I can review to determine if we're ready to upgrade? - Original Message - From: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues Great response to the concerns, David. Much appreciated. Just to clarify: Other than the logging issue you referred to, are there any known issues with 2.05? If so, is there a list I can review to determine if we're ready to upgrade? Thanks, Darin. - Original Message - From: David Franco-Rocha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:43 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues No issue reported to us regarding Declude software will ever be considered trivial or unimportant. It is essential that all issues be reported to Declude Support. A number of comments made recently on these lists refer to issues never reported to Declude. It should also be understood that the Declude forums are very informative for finding out from others whether they have experienced similar issues with the software. They are not, however, intended to be a mechanism for reporting problems to us. We have been monitoring the list messages regarding the DELETE action when there is a COPYALL account and we are concerned as to perceptions that there is a problem or issue with the software. There is a difference of opinion on how a COPYALL account should actually function: (a) to receive a copy of every message processed by the mail server, whether legitimate or not; (b) to receive a copy of only those messages for which there is at least one valid delivery. Aside from differing opinions on how the COPYALL account should function, our tests show that individual recipients whose per-user configurations specified DELETE were in fact being deleted from the recipient list and were not receiving the messages. At the same time, however, we discovered that there was information in the log file that would lead one to believe that the recipient was not being deleted. If the last recipient did not have DELETE as the action to take, the last action in the log file would not read DELETE, even if the previous recipient had been deleted. We are making the appropriate changes to the log file to ensure that all actions taken will be accurately recorded. In addition, we are implementing a configurable parameter to allow or disallow actions to apply to the COPYALL account. This release will be available after user testing and acceptance. It is important to know that we respond to each and every issue raised through our support system and also that when making a quote as to what 'Declude' may have said that the correct words are used within the appropriate context. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted
Title: Message Hi Matt: I would also assume that you are scoring tests such as SNIFFER, INV-URIBL and NJABLDYNA, but it doesn't appear that these scores were added according to your headers I think I can explain most of that. a) I have several "combo" tests that do the actual assigning of weights. Sniffer and INV-URIBL both are part of the "Content" filter. This avoids that the same spammy"URL" found by both tests will add double weight. I think the explanation is, that the HEADER only reports "non-zero" weights. b) The same is true for NJABLDYNA. I have a filter for Dynamic/Dialup blacklists. Again, the idea is to find "dynamic" IP addresses in multiple lists - but if found (in one or more) to only assign ONE weight. So, I wouldn't get hung up too much on the fact that the HEADER and the LOG list of failed tests doesn't line up. It's just that some zero-weight tests are not reported. c) The underlying problem appears to simply be the ROUTETO outweighing the DELETE action. In every case that I've seen so far it was an email that included [EMAIL PROTECTED] as one of the recipients (which triggers the ROUTETO Postmaster... action). Since there WAS a change in the logic in 2.0 regarding the handling of recipients, it's very feasibly the problem. d) I have seen no indication whatsoever, that the bypass whitelisting is not working.In all cases where the POSTMASTER filter with ROUTETOis NOT included, the whitelisting (or rather, the bypass of it) works as intended. In every case I have looked at where Whitelisting IS active, it was reported correctly in the log and the headers. e) Finally, I treat the misreporting of the BYPASS WHITELIST = 6 Recipients as a "cosmetic" error. Apparently, that line should read " 6 Recipients". (I was going to see how it is documented - if at all - but the Declude web site is down). Best RegardsAndy SchmidtHM Systems Software, Inc.600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)Fax: +1 201 934-9206http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:32 AMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not DeletedAndy Schmidt wrote: The message is NOT whitelisted (see log and header), sothe bypass whitelisting WORKED. The log and headers look differently, if whilelisting is effectiveassuming that there isn't a bug. There is definitely something strange here and several clear inconsistencies between the log, the headers and your inbox. There's that one bypass whitelisting line that is wrong, and then I would also assume that you are scoring tests such as SNIFFER, INV-URIBL and NJABLDYNA, but it doesn't appear that these scores were added according to your headers, and of course all entries say DELETE but you still got a copy of the message. It appears as if it was being whitelisted in spite of the logs and the headers, either that or the DELETE action was just simply being ignored. I thought it might help to point out what I though was suggestive of the underlying problem. Kevin's post hints at what might be similar or even related incorrect behavior. Once again, I have NO per-user configuration!I fully understood that after you stated it the first time. I think you misread what I wrote. There's no reason to rehash that however.Matt-- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = attachment: HMSoftSmall.jpg
[Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
anyone? Che Vilnonis Application Developer Advertising Systems Incorporated 8470C Remington Avenue Pennsauken, NJ 08110 p: 856.488.2211 f: 856.488.1990 www.asitv.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
It is on our end too... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Che Vilnonis Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:24 PM To: Declude Email List Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down? anyone? Che Vilnonis Application Developer Advertising Systems Incorporated 8470C Remington Avenue Pennsauken, NJ 08110 p: 856.488.2211 f: 856.488.1990 www.asitv.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
I can't reach their web site site from here. It's 11:39am EST right now. - Original Message - From: Che Vilnonis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude Email List Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:24 AM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down? anyone? Che Vilnonis Application Developer Advertising Systems Incorporated 8470C Remington Avenue Pennsauken, NJ 08110 p: 856.488.2211 f: 856.488.1990 www.asitv.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- E-mail scanned for viruses by Nexus (http://www.ntgrp.com/mailscan) --- E-mail scanned for viruses by Nexus (http://www.ntgrp.com/mailscan) --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
i've been trying since 11:15 ish. anyone manning the ship over there? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Geiser Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down? I can't reach their web site site from here. It's 11:39am EST right now. - Original Message - From: Che Vilnonis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude Email List Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:24 AM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down? anyone? Che Vilnonis Application Developer Advertising Systems Incorporated 8470C Remington Avenue Pennsauken, NJ 08110 p: 856.488.2211 f: 856.488.1990 www.asitv.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- E-mail scanned for viruses by Nexus (http://www.ntgrp.com/mailscan) --- E-mail scanned for viruses by Nexus (http://www.ntgrp.com/mailscan) --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
Yes Declude is down. We are aware of the problem and working to resolve this. We will be back up asap. David B www.declude.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hirthe, Alexander Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:45 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down? yes for me. 63.246.13.88 -Original Message- From: Che Vilnonis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:24 PM To: Declude Email List Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down? anyone? Che Vilnonis Application Developer Advertising Systems Incorporated 8470C Remington Avenue Pennsauken, NJ 08110 p: 856.488.2211 f: 856.488.1990 www.asitv.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. __ NOD32 1.1017 (20050302) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.nod32.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
From So Cal it is not responding. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Che Vilnonis Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:24 AM To: Declude Email List Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down? anyone? Che Vilnonis Application Developer Advertising Systems Incorporated 8470C Remington Avenue Pennsauken, NJ 08110 p: 856.488.2211 f: 856.488.1990 www.asitv.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted
Title: Message Andy, Just curious for the sake of Declude and finding the problem for us so that I can migrate comfortably as well... It appears that whatever "content" filter and your DUL combo filter your system is using wasn't tagged or weighted in your message headers. I assume then that you are using SKIPIFWEIGHT to end the processing on your custom filters and this is why the weight didn't change from 21. Assuming the above, I would then agree that it is probably related to the POSTMASTER filter action of ROUTETO outweighing the DELETE action based on weight. Maybe the change in DELETE not deleting for all recipients on any hit uncovered this bug where dissimilar actions between recipients are causing ROUTETO to override DELETE...but then again who knows without seeing the actual code. I also noted that one of the 6 sets of filter actions was marked POSTMASTER=IGNORE unlike the others which were all POSTMASTER=ROUTETO. Since you are not using per-user configs, this could have only occurred due to per-domain configs and the address in question being an alias for an address on a different domain with a different config, or rather a bug possibly. This did also happen when the same recipient was repeated twice, and only happened on the second occurrence of that address. I would be concerned about the bypass whitelisting issue as a separate item though also possibly related. The logs say it is a = scenario and there were definitely 6 recipients in the message so that should have triggered like the rest. It could be that they are using different variables to count the number of recipients in the Q file, but doing the math only after removing duplicates of recipients as was the case here. There were only 5 unique recipients, but there were 6 listed. Although there is a chance that it could be cosmetic (log-only error), I think there is a chance that this is also a bug, though probably not one associated directly with the problems that you are seeing. One way or another, that should be fixed as well. (Declude, did you catch that?) Matt Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Matt: I would also assume that you are scoring tests such as SNIFFER, INV-URIBL and NJABLDYNA, but it doesn't appear that these scores were added according to your headers I think I can explain most of that. a) I have several "combo" tests that do the actual assigning of weights. Sniffer and INV-URIBL both are part of the "Content" filter. This avoids that the same spammy"URL" found by both tests will add double weight. I think the explanation is, that the HEADER only reports "non-zero" weights. b) The same is true for NJABLDYNA. I have a filter for Dynamic/Dialup blacklists. Again, the idea is to find "dynamic" IP addresses in multiple lists - but if found (in one or more) to only assign ONE weight. So, I wouldn't get hung up too much on the fact that the HEADER and the LOG list of failed tests doesn't line up. It's just that some zero-weight tests are not reported. c) The underlying problem appears to simply be the ROUTETO outweighing the DELETE action. In every case that I've seen so far it was an email that included [EMAIL PROTECTED] as one of the recipients (which triggers the ROUTETO Postmaster... action). Since there WAS a change in the logic in 2.0 regarding the handling of recipients, it's very feasibly the problem. d) I have seen no indication whatsoever, that the bypass whitelisting is not working.In all cases where the POSTMASTER filter with ROUTETOis NOT included, the whitelisting (or rather, the bypass of it) works as intended. In every case I have looked at where Whitelisting IS active, it was reported correctly in the log and the headers. e) Finally, I treat the misreporting of the BYPASS WHITELIST = 6 Recipients as a "cosmetic" error. Apparently, that line should read " 6 Recipients". (I was going to see how it is documented - if at all - but the Declude web site is down). Best Regards Andy Schmidt HM Systems Software, Inc. 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:32 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted Andy Schmidt wrote: The message is NOT whitelisted (see log and header), sothe bypass whitelisting WORKED. The log and headers look differently, if whilelisting is effective. ...assuming that there isn't a bug. There is definitely something strange here and several clear inconsistencies between the log, the headers and your inbox. There's that one bypass whitelisting line that is wrong, and then I would also assume that you are scoring tests such as SNIFFER,
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues
Hi, I just was contacted by Declude and provided various config files. Apparently my support@ email from last night was not received, possibly related to the server problems they are having today. So, if you have been sending your problems to support and have not heard back, you may need to confirm receipt. Best Regards Andy Schmidt HM Systems Software, Inc. 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message- From: Erik Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:00 AM It would be nice Declude would post this information instead of ignoring requests or using not a priority as a result. The DELETE action is not taking the action it should. We too have reverted back to 1.82 as this version seems to be steady for us. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
[Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] catchallmails question
Title: Message Thanks, Darrell. This at least sets me on the right path. I don't believe "Whitelist AUTH" is something we use because we're running IMail 7.15, which, I believe, doesn't support that option. However, there must be other,similar causes for being skipped. So, does anyone know a list of reasons why messages would be skipped? Obviously, a whitelist of address, domains, and IPs, would be one possibility. For that matter, does anyone have a utility that would analyze messages being skipped? It would seem an obvious thing to review, in case a whitelisted source (AUTH, address, etc.) becomes hijacked. Perhaps this would be a good addition for DLAnalyzer. Ben - Original Message - From: Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] catchallmails question Ben, There are various conditions that can account for messages being picked up without being marked with the "CATCHALLMAILS" test. A good bulk of these instances occur because a message under certain conditions will not loga "Test failed" line. One example is "Whitelist AUTH" in this particular example the only line that is logged in the Declude log for that particular message is this. 02/28/2004 00:01:59 Q57371524c9ad Skipping E-mail from authenticated user [EMAIL PROTECTED]; whitelisted. In regards to DLAnalyzer it will count this as a message (as it should), but there will be no tests associated with it like "catchallmails" because the "Tests failed" line is not logged. There are other situations where this also occurs, but that one stuck into my head. Hope that helps. Darrell ---Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude And Imail. IMail/Declude Overflow Queue Monitoring, SURBL/URI integration, MRTG Integration, and Log Parsers. - Original Message - From: Imail Admin To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:54 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] catchallmails question Hi, I have a strange question, which once against my astounding ignorance. I just tried using DLAnalyzer Lite on our latest Declude JM log. For the sample I tested, I got these results: Total Messages Processed: 11,234Messages That Failed Defined Test(s): 10,153Percentage That Failed Defined Test(s): 90.38%Average Message Weight: 4Average Message Weight/Failed: 5 TEST # FAILED PercentageWEIGHT10...6,308...56.15%CATCHALLMAILS..5,393...48.01%NOLEGITCONTENT.4,361...38.82%IPNOTINMX..4,237...37.72%WEIGHT53,856...34.32%WEIGHT10S..3,564...31.73%WEIGHT20...3,509...31.24%WEIGHT73,465...30.84%SNIFFER3,451...30.72%SPAMCOP3,006...26.76% You can ignore the Weight tests; those are just weight ranges and not real tests. Here's the thing: Catchallmails also is not a real test; it's supposed to catch all emails. So why doesn't the Catchallmails statistic above show 100%? The system is telling me that Catchallmails only caught 48%. I should mention that Catchallmails comes in the global.cfg file after the regular tests, and after the weight ranges, but before a handful of whitelisted IPs. Help, please? Ben BC Web
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Hi David, I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2 support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe below as well? Thanks -Nick Hayer We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Nick, Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it. The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Hi David, I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2 support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe below as well? Thanks -Nick Hayer We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues
Don't know if this contributes anything, but I have noted one thing. At LOW logging in 2.0.5 for a message weighing more than the delete threshold, the dec.log shows L1 Message OK indicating it was ok for delivery, but will still be deleted. This is confirmed by looking at the sys.txt log. It didn't do that in 1.82 and earlier. There I got a single Tests failed line. I have no user config. John 03/03/2005 14:11:04 Q6f4a00480158fbbd L1 Message OK 03/03/2005 14:11:04 Q6f4a00480158fbbd Tests failed [weight=34]: NOLEGITCONTENT=IGNORE IPNOTINMX=IGNORE SBL=WARN SPAMCOP=WARN BADHEADERS=WARN SPAMHEADERS=WARN JCFILTER=DELETE SNIFFER=WARN WEIGHT10=SUBJECT WEIGHT20=DELETE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:27 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues On 2 Mar 2005 at 18:07, Darin Cox wrote: Hi Darin, 2.05 will pass email that should have been deleted. The total weight may be 3 times your delete weight and the email will still be delivered. Declude tech support is aware of the problem - and as far as I know it is unresolved. I am back to 1.82 -Nick Repost. Just to clarify: Other than the logging issue you referred to, are there any known issues with 2.05? If so, is there a list I can review to determine if we're ready to upgrade? - Original Message - From: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues Great response to the concerns, David. Much appreciated. Just to clarify: Other than the logging issue you referred to, are there any known issues with 2.05? If so, is there a list I can review to determine if we're ready to upgrade? Thanks, Darin. - Original Message - From: David Franco-Rocha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:43 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.0 Issues No issue reported to us regarding Declude software will ever be considered trivial or unimportant. It is essential that all issues be reported to Declude Support. A number of comments made recently on these lists refer to issues never reported to Declude. It should also be understood that the Declude forums are very informative for finding out from others whether they have experienced similar issues with the software. They are not, however, intended to be a mechanism for reporting problems to us. We have been monitoring the list messages regarding the DELETE action when there is a COPYALL account and we are concerned as to perceptions that there is a problem or issue with the software. There is a difference of opinion on how a COPYALL account should actually function: (a) to receive a copy of every message processed by the mail server, whether legitimate or not; (b) to receive a copy of only those messages for which there is at least one valid delivery. Aside from differing opinions on how the COPYALL account should function, our tests show that individual recipients whose per-user configurations specified DELETE were in fact being deleted from the recipient list and were not receiving the messages. At the same time, however, we discovered that there was information in the log file that would lead one to believe that the recipient was not being deleted. If the last recipient did not have DELETE as the action to take, the last action in the log file would not read DELETE, even if the previous recipient had been deleted. We are making the appropriate changes to the log file to ensure that all actions taken will be accurately recorded. In addition, we are implementing a configurable parameter to allow or disallow actions to apply to the COPYALL account. This release will be available after user testing and acceptance. It is important to know that we respond to each and every issue raised through our support system and also that when making a quote as to what 'Declude' may have said that the correct words are used within the appropriate context. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
On 3 Mar 2005 at 16:18, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone. Oh. I do not use ROUTETO anywhere so at least in my case that is not a cause - Please keep us informed - in the meantime I'm back to 1.82 -Nick --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Hi, Thanks for the explanation to Nick - that makes sense and seems to fit my issue. I generally agree that the new function is desirable. Now we just need to figure out how to implement it robustly. E.g., when Declude modifies the envelope to the new route-to address, it may have to remember that new recipient so that it can reference it in case it later encounters a DELETE action. Or, to reverse that logic, let the ROUTETO remember the new recipient - but don't actually update the envelope until Spam processing for that user is complete. Best Regards Andy Schmidt HM Systems Software, Inc. 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Franco-Rocha Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 04:19 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Nick, Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it. The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Hi David, I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2 support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe below as well? Thanks -Nick Hayer We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Would it be possible to change the logging to reflect the final action for each user. This would make since and make it easier to know the final disposition of the email. We use a catchall account on Imail and a message that should have been delete the final disposition showed Last action = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Franco-Rocha Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:19 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Nick, Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it. The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Hi David, I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2 support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe below as well? Thanks -Nick Hayer We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Kevin, When was the last time someone granted you a request simply because you asked? :-) We are currently making changes to the log whereby the debug mode will show all actions for all users, so that it will be much easier to see exactly what happened to any particular email. David - Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Would it be possible to change the logging to reflect the final action for each user. This would make since and make it easier to know the final disposition of the email. We use a catchall account on Imail and a message that should have been delete the final disposition showed Last action = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Franco-Rocha Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:19 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Nick, Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it. The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Hi David, I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2 support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe below as well? Thanks -Nick Hayer We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
On 3 Mar 2005 at 16:57, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Excellent David. Good idea Kevin.. This will help us all - Thanks -Nick Kevin, When was the last time someone granted you a request simply because you asked? :-) We are currently making changes to the log whereby the debug mode will show all actions for all users, so that it will be much easier to see exactly what happened to any particular email. David - Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Would it be possible to change the logging to reflect the final action for each user. This would make since and make it easier to know the final disposition of the email. We use a catchall account on Imail and a message that should have been delete the final disposition showed Last action = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Franco-Rocha Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:19 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Nick, Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it. The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Hi David, I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2 support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe below as well? Thanks -Nick Hayer We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
lol , its been a while. I would suggest also putting it in log level high, due to most log analyzers do not use the debug mode. I think most of the issues right now are that most admins are looking at log level high and that the information on last action is missleading. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Franco-Rocha Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:57 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Kevin, When was the last time someone granted you a request simply because you asked? :-) We are currently making changes to the log whereby the debug mode will show all actions for all users, so that it will be much easier to see exactly what happened to any particular email. David - Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Would it be possible to change the logging to reflect the final action for each user. This would make since and make it easier to know the final disposition of the email. We use a catchall account on Imail and a message that should have been delete the final disposition showed Last action = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Franco-Rocha Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:19 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x Nick, Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it. The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote: Hi David, I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2 support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe below as well? Thanks -Nick Hayer We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version 2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to deal with this issue. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the
[Declude.JunkMail] Version 2 blues
This is a weird thing that I've noticed since I upgraded to version 2: I use SpamReview to scan my HOLD file contents. I'm sure I'm not alone, and I'm also sure that I've been using SpamReview in exactly the same way on exactly the same machine for years. At least two. The only variable in the mix that has changed was the Declude version. If I select certain files and try to move them, either with the Return to Queue or Delete buttons, I get a SpamReview runtime error 70. Permission denied. If I then access my \spool\spam folder directly in Windows Explorer and try to delete the message, I get a this file is being accessed sharing violation. Is there some part of new version 2 processing that would hold onto the file after it has been dumped in \spam? The Q file seems to be the locked portion, not the D, but I'm going to trace down some more of these before I say that it's always the Q file. This appears to be random, only a small percentage of the files in \spam are affected at any given time, and it also appears to clear up if I wait long enough. However the file that I'm stuck on right now was dumped at 11:00 last night, and it's nearly 5:00 in the afternoon of the next day now. Something else to add to the version 2 question list. -- John Shacklett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.continentaloffice.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
[Declude.JunkMail] Failing my own MAILFROM test
I seem to remember something about this in the archives, but haven't been able to track it down. When I use the outgoing tests, legitimate mail from my own server gets blocked largely because they fail MAILFROM. X-RBL-Warning: MAILFROM: Domain dfn.com has no MX or A records [0001]. DNSreport shows my MX and A records are correct. Bill Green dfn Systems --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
David Franco-Rocha wrote: I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it. The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. Wow, that is REALLY NOT how this should be working. The clear and obvious mistake was to let the ROUTETO action change the recipient for which the actions were being applied. If you don't see the err in this, please chime up because I could write a book about how this is bad and will have many unintended consequences. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
At 04:40 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, Andy Schmidt wrote: I generally agree that the new function is desirable. Now we just need to figure out how to implement it robustly. E.g., when Declude modifies the envelope to the new route-to address, it may have to remember that new recipient so that it can reference it in case it later encounters a DELETE action. Or, to reverse that logic, let the ROUTETO remember the new recipient - but don't actually update the envelope until Spam processing for that user is complete. The problem is the COPYALL account as it will always be HELD rather than have SPAM deleted as it always fails enough HOLD actions prior to DELETE weight. And as the COPYALL isn't a real part of the envelope it most likely causes more problems since it is added somewhere in IMAIL as a seperate addressee. [This E-mail scanned for viruses by F-Prot] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Failing my own MAILFROM test
Hi, Check if you defined any DNS servers for Declude. If not, see which ones are defines in the Imail settings. Query THOSE DNS servers to see if they have MX/A records. Sometimes people have an internal DNS server for the AD domain that doesn't have the public records. If that doesn't help - turn on debug mode, then send a test mail and turn debug mode back off. I'm pretty certain Declude will tell you exactly which server it queried and what response it obtained. Best Regards Andy -Original Message- From: Of Bill Green dfn Systems I seem to remember something about this in the archives, but haven't been able to track it down. When I use the outgoing tests, legitimate mail from my own server gets blocked largely because they fail MAILFROM. X-RBL-Warning: MAILFROM: Domain dfn.com has no MX or A records [0001]. DNSreport shows my MX and A records are correct. Bill Green dfn Systems --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
No copyall account here. -Original Message- From: Ncl Admin The problem is the COPYALL account as it will always be HELD rather than have SPAM deleted as it always fails enough HOLD actions prior to DELETE weight. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
The copy all account is added before the message is passed ot declude so declude should not know the difference. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ncl Admin Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:34 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com; Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x At 04:40 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, Andy Schmidt wrote: I generally agree that the new function is desirable. Now we just need to figure out how to implement it robustly. E.g., when Declude modifies the envelope to the new route-to address, it may have to remember that new recipient so that it can reference it in case it later encounters a DELETE action. Or, to reverse that logic, let the ROUTETO remember the new recipient - but don't actually update the envelope until Spam processing for that user is complete. The problem is the COPYALL account as it will always be HELD rather than have SPAM deleted as it always fails enough HOLD actions prior to DELETE weight. And as the COPYALL isn't a real part of the envelope it most likely causes more problems since it is added somewhere in IMAIL as a seperate addressee. [This E-mail scanned for viruses by F-Prot] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
