Hello,
what _is_ blackholes.us? Just another ip4r Test? Or something I should
know? ;-)
Alex
---
[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
Alexander,
Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote:
HA what _is_ blackholes.us? Just another ip4r Test? Or something I should
HA know? ;-)
http://www.blackholes.us/
you pick a country you want to check - for instance China - so in your
CFG file you add:
CHINA ip4rchina.blackholes.us
The anti spam community has a pretty good handle on the IPv4 bank. What
will IPv6 do to all our collective experience? All those new places to
hide will have to be mapped out all over again!
I've been thinking a lot about that. The neat thing is that IPv6 already
exists and is being used,
Frederick,
Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote:
FS My provider and is on the blackholes.us list.
FS This what they say about it.
FS Email_Message : I've inquired of that and there's no signs of
FS anyone actually being blackholed. I contacted some of the bigger
FS players in the abuse/spam world
Does anyone know where IMail Antivirus fits into the processing order.
According to the manual the processing order is as follows:
1. IMail's Control Access file (to block IPs)
2. IMail's Kill List (to block return addresses)
3. Declude Hijack
4. Declude Virus
5. Declude JunkMail
6. IMail's
I added this yesterday after seeing the post on this. As of 9:00pm last
night I have 1,500 junk mails from this alone. I'm placing it on hold so I
can review it. I did a FIND command on the subject and I have not found 1
good piece of email yet.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Joe,
Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote:
JWC #2 Is the Declude replacement to the Ipswitch mail handler that
JWC much more inefficient, or does JunkMail just take alot more
JWC processing?
Declude doesn't replace the mail handler. It is handed the message by
IMAIL, processes it, and depending
Has anyone found MessageSniffer to add any significant CPU load
before/after implementation?
David
WiSS Limited
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:Declude.JunkMail-owner;declude.com] On Behalf Of Uhte, Russ
Sent: 04 November 2002 17:06
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE:
Does anyone know where IMail Antivirus fits into the processing order.
According to the manual the processing order is as follows:
1. IMail's Control Access file (to block IPs)
2. IMail's Kill List (to block return addresses)
3. Declude Hijack
4. Declude Virus
5. Declude JunkMail
6. IMail's
It looks like blackholes.us is listing complete ISP's regardless of
offending ip's.
- Original Message -
From: Danny Klopfer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] blackholes.us
I added this yesterday after
Our test server does not show any significant difference between Declude
alone and Declude w/ Message Sniffer. Performance logs report average
processing times of about 170ms per message - and this includes the time
it takes to load the rule base and the message under test. Our test bed
server
David,
Monday, November 4, 2002 you wrote:
DLW Has anyone found MessageSniffer to add any significant CPU load
DLW before/after implementation?
No noticeable load.
If you are are already using it you can get this information in the
sniffer logs - see
I have Weight10 setup to reroute to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that is where
IMail Antivirus caught the virus was when IMail tried to deliver it to
abuse.
How exactly was it caught? Do you mean that IMail AntiVirus caught the
E-mail, and that the E-mail that it caught with a virus in it had SPAM:
Everyone thanks for the replies. I did take a look at the overflow
directory and it was empty. I cleaned out the spool directory and offloaded
all outbound to our production servers. We'll see how this works out before
digging in too far.
This server has a dedicated T1 and is saturated some of
We have just released Declude v1.62 (beta). See
http://www.declude.com/junkmail/manual.htm . Changes include:
o Will now handle multiple return codes in ip4r tests.
o Will now record the action for each test that fails.
o Changes handling of invalid [?.?.?.?].
o External tests can now
I was just looking at the JunkMail manual page and you have the
fpcmd.exe parameters marked with /
fpcmd.exe is part of F-Prot, and actually used with Declude Virus. :)
As of 3.12b fpcmd.exe requires parameters to be marked with -
i.e. SCANFILE fpcmd.exe -TYPE -SILENT -NOMEM -ARCHIVE
Not seeing %COUNTRYCHAIN% working in inheader here. Should I be using
%COUNTRIES% instead or does a line have to be added to the Global
file?
Sorry, I forgot to mention that there is a data file needed for the country
lookup to work (so that it doesn't require DNS lookups). I'll post a URL
Last month our single Imail server running Declude AV and JM did 3,427,511
mails...roughly 76.8 emails a minute (about 13,000 a/cs). Our CPU load is
small. However when you run JM you will be doing a heck of a lot of DNS
queries. Scott could the delay on a slow link for all these queries pull
Adds ipnotinmx test, which catches E-mail sent from an IP not in the
MX records of sending domain.
This one sounds very useful.
Is this correct?
IPNOTINMX ipnotinmx x x (weight) (negweight)
Yes -- the default is:
IPNOTINMX ipnotinmx x x
Yes -- the default is:
IPNOTINMX ipnotinmx x x 0 -4
Now I am confused. (Not the first, won't be the last.) Why would you assign
a negative weight? It seems like this test is to see if the mail came from
other that a domain registered mail server, and if so,
Seems to me that this would add a LOT of false positives, especially
from larger ISPs where the outgoing relay servers aren't necessarily
the same as the incoming (the only ones listed in MX records) smtp
servers.
Am I all wet on this?
I agree with you completely. In fact, even with tiny
Hello,
We are a small ISP in Southeastern Massachusetts.
We presently use IMail as our mail server platform. Would be interested to
here from some folks who've used Declude's JunkMail software (Opinions). Any
feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Steve C
TMLP Online
Steve:
I have less than three hundred accounts on our Ipswitch Imail server, and we've been
using Declude
JunkMail for several weeks. The cost/benefit ratio for JunkMail is very favorable.
Tech support is
very good. However this is not magic bullet software; someone there must have time to
highly recommend it - we use JM Pro and wouldn;t
trade it for the world.
Sincerely,
Randy ArmbrechtGlobal Web Solutions®, Inc.804-346-5300
x102877-800-GLOBAL (4562) x102
- Original Message -
From:
steve
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:57
Being a newbie with Declude Pro, I can't think of
anything easier to use and implement. So far we have yet to set per-user
settings, global ones are just fine so far. It's amazing how much junk is out
there, and how much Declude will eliminate for you. While you're at it, Declude
Virus
25 matches
Mail list logo
