[Declude.JunkMail] NJABL:HELP Declude has stopped working

I just discovered that Declude Virus and Junk has stopped working. I think it was after upgrading to Imail 7.07 but not sure. F-Prot is installed and appears to be working but it seems declude.exe is not being executed -no AV protection and no Spam detection. I've tried v1.49 and 1.49 beta but

[Declude.JunkMail] NJABL:HELP Declude has stopped working

I have discovered the problem. A system administrator had changed the host name in IMail to the domain we normally use for email. This change prevented Declude (for what reason I know not) from working. Changing the domain back to it's original cured the problem instantly. If anyone has a handle

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] NJABL:HELP Declude has stopped working

David, Your declude code was assigned when you bought the product and is run against the host name you submitted at that time. So changing the host name will invalidate the code. You can ask Scott for a new code for the new host name. Terry Fritts Friday, April 26, 2002 you wrote: DLW I

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] NJABL:HELP Declude has stopped working

Terry, That makes perfect sense. Lesson learned. Thanks for this. Best regards David -Original Message- From: Smart Business Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 26 April 2002 10:59 To: David Lewis-Waller Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] NJABL:HELP Declude has stopped working

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.49 list problem

The List submissions are accepted, scanned, and dumped into the spool directory as nice tidy .LST files, and then they just sit there Good catch. It looks like the .LST files aren't getting processed immediately with 1.49. This will be fixed in 1.50, which should be ready later today.

[Declude.JunkMail] Pro / Per User Configuration

I just setup the Attach feature last night (great feature BTW) ... and I noticed some of my postings from some closed mailing lists were being caught because of open relays at the users ISP. So I want to setup Junkmail to always let mail to certain users pass, ie the mailing list addresses for

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Pro / Per User Configuration

I just setup the Attach feature last night (great feature BTW) ... and I noticed some of my postings from some closed mailing lists were being caught because of open relays at the users ISP. So I want to setup Junkmail to always let mail to certain users pass, ie the mailing list addresses for

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Pro / Per User Configuration

Actually, an easier way may be to whitelist them, by adding a line like this to your global.cfg file: WHITELIST FROM[EMAIL PROTECTED] But that would require me to know each individual poster whose ISP is messed up ... There isn't something like WHITELIST TO [EMAIL

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.49 list problem

Friday, April 26, 2002, 8:12:05 AM, you wrote: Does this mean that if I send something to a list it will not go out right now? I hope not... as I need to send something today to 295 users Eagerly awaiting a fix I'm running 1.49 (latest incarnation) and haven't seen any problems with my

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Pro / Per User Configuration

Actually, an easier way may be to whitelist them, by adding a line like this to your global.cfg file: WHITELIST FROM[EMAIL PROTECTED] But that would require me to know each individual poster whose ISP is messed up ... There isn't something like WHITELIST TO

[Declude.JunkMail] What do you think of this?

Hey Scott: Would it be possible create a boolean test that we could configure, basically a if/then kind of thing? ex: if SPAMCOP and REVDNS then weight = 9000 - Timm --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses at tqci.net] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] What do you think of this?

Would it be possible create a boolean test that we could configure, basically a if/then kind of thing? ex: if SPAMCOP and REVDNS then weight = 9000 That's something that we have given some thought to, but were never sure how useful it would actually be (given all the combinations of tests

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.49 list problem

I wonder if that was our problem yesterday. We had a few messages sent to our a list of 800 and a list of 1200. I didn't recall seeing any .LST files, however it took more than 2 hours to send out the message -- whereas in the past those two lists seemed to send everything within 5 minutes.

BLARSBL:Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.49 list problem

Reply to: John Shacklett Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.49 list problem on Friday 8:38:25 AM We have been witnessing this for a while... as well. It seems like list mail just sits there forever unless is is manually pushed.. This seems to be the only way it gets delivered. -- Roger

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Attach

Are there relationships in the spamattach.eml that need to be maintained. I edited the message a bit and the attach function stopped working. Could you please enlighten me. The main thing to be concerned about with any of the \IMail\Declude\*.eml files is that they start with To:, From:, and

[Declude.JunkMail] Declude v1.50 (beta) released

We have just released Declude JunkMail v1.50 (beta). Noticeable changes include: o Fixes problem with mailing list E-mails being delayed o Fixes an issue with WHITELIST TO and WHITELIST TODOMAIN not working in certain situations o Adds a DAISYCHAIN option to allow for

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] What do you think of this?

I think you might arrange it by creating a new test called BOOL that uses other test names (including other bools) and allows for a boolean expression to pass or fail. Then the resulting test could be weighted in. This would give the most flexibility with the simplest (read most reliable fast)

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] What do you think of this?

S_N_R BOOL (SPAMCOP * REVDNS) 9000 ... What about that? It would certainly work. The question in my mind, though, is how useful would this be? Is this something that would commonly be used? I think that with the weighting system, the value of boolean test logic is less than it