Lower the weights of the noabuse/nopostmaster tests for one.
I think the default is 5 for each. The noabuse/nopostmaster tests fail for
most of the big guys (aol.com,earthlink.net,msn.com,etc,etc...)
Or You might play by raising the weight of the other tests and
trapping/bouncing on a higher
I agree with Tom on Bounce. When I first implemented JunkMail, I would
Bounce messages. I then got tired of dealing with all the failed Bounce.
Now I hold and every couple of days I go through and delete all held
messages over 5 days old.
5 Days is plenty of time for someone to complain they
Hi;
I think Declude looks at this:
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Two possibilities:
- @postino.ch is whitelisted
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is whitelisted.
At least that is my understanding...
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
These are the whitelist entries:
#Exceptions for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WHITELIST
ANYWHERE[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WHITELIST
FROM
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WHITELIST
TO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WHITELIST
TO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WHITELIST
TO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WHITELIST
TO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I bounce on RBLs only. I created an account called spam-bounce and setup and
Imail rule to delete any mail sent to that address. Then I set the bounce
email from address to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that way if they come back
they are deleted by the system. Make sure you provide adequate info in your
I bounce on RBLs only. I created an account called spam-bounce and setup and
Imail rule to delete any mail sent to that address. Then I set the bounce
email from address to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that way if they come back
they are deleted by the system. Make sure you provide adequate info in your
Gave me a chuckle, thought I'd share
Received: from mail.reallyfakedomain.com [64.158.31.171] by wpa.net with
ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.12) id A28419320042; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:34:28 -0400
Received: from heater (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.reallyfakedomain.com (Postfix) with SMTP id
Using the latest beta, you can set up a filter that would reject any
E-mail
with mx-man.net in the headers.
Thanks! I have not had much time this summer to follow the betas and the
features you have been adding.
Sheldon
Sheldon Koehler, Owner/Partnerhttp://www.tenforward.com
Ten
on 9/5/02 9:23 PM, Madscientist wrote:
All this is good I guess. Until we come up with some good examples of
legitimate messages with text/html base64 then we won't completely
settle the issue. It does seem that the evidence so far is strongly in
favor of a spam/no-spam test for base64
[X] I agree.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Im Auftrag von Helpdesk
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. September 2002 18:54
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] More encoded spam
on 9/5/02 9:23 PM, Madscientist wrote:
Hello,
Recently, Texas AM University decided to institute some method for
checking to see if the sending mail server accepts mail from a null
sender. We set-up our Imail server to not accept null senders. I know,
I know, it's a violation of RFC but it seems to me that this RFC is
archaic and
Recently, Texas AM University decided to institute some method for
checking to see if the sending mail server accepts mail from a null
sender.
Ouch. :)
Have you gotten listed in http://www.rfc-ignorant.org yet?
We set-up our Imail server to not accept null senders. I know,
I know, it's a
Is there any way to get an RFC repealed? I personally
would like to see an RFC instituted that makes sending mail from a null
sender a violation of RFC.
It ain't gonna happen! So you had better start accepting null senders or
find yourself blacklisted at www.rfc-ignorant.org. And then things
Scott I believe I found the problem ... before I took over looking after the
mail server, with all its quirks, I think a test version of an early
junkmail was loaded ... I found another config and junkmail file in the
imail root so I have a version of the config and junk files there and one in
FWIW, Exchange uses Null senders for their out of office notification
and other rules/server side messages.
If you turn that off in iMail you'll block these messages.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Sheldon Koehler
Sent:
Thanks for your replies.
Good luck!
Sheldon
Sheldon Koehler, Owner/Partnerhttp://www.tenforward.com
Ten Forward Communications 360-457-9023
Nationwide access, neighborhood support!
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time
to pause and reflect. Mark
Declude.exe should be in the IMail root and the config files in the
IMail\Declude directory.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: Doris Dean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Blacklist is still failing
Scott I believe I found the problem ... before I took over looking after the
mail server, with all its quirks, I think a test version of an early
junkmail was loaded ... I found another config and junkmail file in the
imail root so I have a version of the config and junk files there and one in
All this is good I guess. Until we come up with some good examples of
legitimate messages with text/html base64 then we won't completely
settle the issue. It does seem that the evidence so far is strongly in
favor of a spam/no-spam test for base64 encoded html.
Any news on this front?
Hi Scott,
Only a suggestion, maybe I'm wrong: Can it be usefull to give a few
points for messages delivered in a certain time range?(for example
between 10.00 pm and 05.00 am)
A great part of the messages delivered in this time range are spam. The
problem is that there are also newsletter and
Only a suggestion, maybe I'm wrong: Can it be usefull to give a few
points for messages delivered in a certain time range?(for example
between 10.00 pm and 05.00 am)
That is a good idea, and something that we have been giving some thought
to. It would likely only be beneficial to a small
Now there's a sophisticated element to the test. You could key the time to
the geographic region of the sender's IP range. Not much more work (since
it's generally hard-coded) but makes the test useful for determining the
time of day at the sender's location -- in theory anyway.
Thoughts?
_M
Now there's a sophisticated element to the test. You could key the time
to the geographic region of the sender's IP range. Not much more work
(since it's generally hard-coded) but makes the test useful for
determining the time of day at the sender's location -- in theory
anyway.
Now that sounds
23 matches
Mail list logo
