We used F-PROT only, updated once every hour, and advise clients this is
just a first line of defence and advise them to keep their AVs up to date as
well.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Newberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 28 May 2002 21:32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE:
But won't enabling it in the \global.cfg file start that test for all
mails?
I would assume that it should only be a weighted test in the global.cfg
and not have a direct action?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R.
Scott Perry
Hi I'm new to declude software and this list
Is there a way to ban a certain to address in a message like
undisclosed recipients.
or No to address
I had to turn of Bad headers and Spam headers as it was catching to much
good mail as well
Andrew Fretwell
TechSupport
www.apstechnology.com
Scott (and Everybody),
The following tripped our SPAMHEADERS test. This was odd because I get this
newsletter a few times a week and this was the first time it had failed. So
I jumped up to the header check tool
(http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420e) and discovered the
issue was
Hi I'm new to declude software and this list
Is there a way to ban a certain to address in a message like
undisclosed recipients.
or No to address
No, there is no way to do that yet.
I had to turn of Bad headers and Spam headers as it was catching to much
good mail as well
Those two tests
But won't enabling it in the \global.cfg file start that test for all
mails?
That's not enabling the test; it just defines the test. If you don't have
the CATCHALLMAILS catchallmails... line in the global.cfg file, then the
CATCHALLMAILS test doesn't exist.
I would assume that it should
The following tripped our SPAMHEADERS test. This was odd because I get this
newsletter a few times a week and this was the first time it had failed. So
I jumped up to the header check tool
(http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420e) and discovered the
issue was a missing message id
Hello...
After having JunkMail for a week or two, I'm surprised that all the spams
are either Badheaders,
Spamheaders (and a couple of Routings). I would have expected to see more
caught against the other tests but have yet to see any. Is this normal?
Thx,
D.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for
I got an on-line order confirmation from
QuillCorp.com that failed both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS.
Glenn Z.
- Original Message -
From:
R. Scott
Perry
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:27
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] any
way
Hi
After having JunkMail for a week or two, I'm surprised that all the spams
are either Badheaders,
Spamheaders (and a couple of Routings). I would have expected to see more
caught against the other tests but have yet to see any. Is this normal?
No -- you should be seeing lots of other tests
I got an on-line order confirmation from QuillCorp.com that failed both
BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS.
Then they definitely need to fix the problem. I would suggest contacting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to let them know about the problem. Any E-mail
that fails the BADHEADERS test indicates a serious
Scott,
Our server was generating emails that failed the spam headers test because
there was no Message-ID,
We added a Message-ID and now we get this message:
Code: 8000800e. The E-mail failed the BADHEADERS test.
This E-mail has a bogus Message-ID: header.
What exactly is Declude looking
Our server was generating emails that failed the spam headers test because
there was no Message-ID,
We added a Message-ID and now we get this message:
Code: 8000800e. The E-mail failed the BADHEADERS test.
This E-mail has a bogus Message-ID: header.
What exactly is Declude looking for
Which happens first, junkmail or virus filtering?
rusty
---
[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
Which happens first, junkmail or virus filtering?
Normally, the virus filtering is done first. However, the latest version
of Declude has an option AVAFTERJM ON that can be used to have the virus
scanning done after the spam scanning.
-Scott
---
[This
It would seem more efficient to have the Junkmail filtered first, then only
AV scan the good ones. But, does that leave a hole in the AV protection?
Can you give us any scenerios in which you would recommend one over the
other?
Todd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would seem more efficient to have the Junkmail filtered first, then only
AV scan the good ones. But, does that leave a hole in the AV protection?
Can you give us any scenerios in which you would recommend one over the
other?
This was actually brought up here quite recently (last week?). It
Here's our header. Got SPAMHEADERS warning because of no Message-ID, added
the Message-ID that you see there and now get BADHEADERS.
X-F: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 29 13:12:21 2002
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by CommerceStreet.com
(SMTP32) id A06EC; Wed, 29 May 2002 13:12:18 -0500
Received:
Here's our header. Got SPAMHEADERS warning because of no Message-ID, added
the Message-ID that you see there and now get BADHEADERS.
Message-ID: Shopping Cart System by CommerceStreet.com
That's because the Message-ID: header has a specific format -- it's
supposed to uniquely identify an
You da man!
There was a typo in the primary DNS. Already have received a Mailfrom and
Revdns since making the correction. (Strange to feel good about that :o) ).
Never noticed the incorrect DNS since I could browse the internet just fine
on the alternate. Typo's probably been there since
Is there a setting in the global.cfg to add a DNS server? Would it use this
server instead of the Imail settings?
Craig
---
[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
I've also seen several legitimate emails that failed the BADHEADERS test.
After studying a test group for about 3 weeks, I came to the conclusion that
I could catch a lot of spam email but still allow 99+% of legitimate email
to go through by using a Weight test with a value of 22.
This still
Unfortunately, I had to stop trying to tell people because it took up so
much time. And most had an email tone like this:
(o|o)
-
Totally clueless! Didn't care!
Todd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday,
Yes, I've gotten several spams that didn't fail any
tests. I've added some to my blacklist test, but I doubt that will do much
good in the end.
Glenn Z.
- Original Message -
From:
Mark
Smith
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:50
PM
Yup. I don't bother with a blacklist as these clowns are always one step ahead of me
in this regard. Gave up on blacklisting domains long ago.
Some ideas on going to the next level:
a)give the SpamCop test a weight heavy enough to fail a message on its own. Imperfect
at best.
b) use
You mean there is a permission based thingey for Declude??? i'd like to know
about it. You guys are moving so fast i can't even keep up anymore LOL!
Gave up long ago
I just nod my head and go... that's sounds good, don't have a clue what
your talking about. :)
- Original Message -
From:
Title: Message
It is
a full scale arms race - we've seen some amazing things...
_M
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark
SmithSent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:08 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
27 matches
Mail list logo
