Hehe -- lost the outbound original mail below when I rebooted -- it'll
probably show up later.
OK, I got processing/headers back but still no log file. Should
LOGFILE X:\dec.log work?
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:26:14 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
Gerald V. Livingston II said something about
Should 'LOGFILE X:\dec.log' work to save the logfile to a different
drive?
I did a no-no and decided to make multiple changes at once and I seem to
have lost logging --- hmm looks like I lost processing completely somehow.
No more decludeJM headers.
I upgraded to 1.75, changed from LOGLEVEL
OK, I got processing/headers back but still no log file. Should
LOGFILE X:\dec.log work?
Yes, a line LOGFILE X:\dec.log should work fine (just so long as
there is a drive X:). Are there any other LOGFILE lines in the
\IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (if so, they should be removed)?
How are people treating this? It looks almost legit and almost like a way
to harvest e-mail address though too
Received: from peter.wominfo.net [207.36.196.99] by mail.prudentialrand.com
with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.15) id A7523D900E2; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:39:14 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:12:10 -0500
R. Scott Perry said something about Re: [Declude.JunkMail] LOGFILE action:
OK, I got processing/headers back but still no log file. Should
LOGFILE X:\dec.log work?
Yes, a line LOGFILE X:\dec.log should work fine (just so long as
there is a
There's got to be something else I screwed up. If I drop to a command line
and run 'c:\imail\declude.exe /boogabooga' then JM creates the logfile --
in the right spot/drive -- with a complaint about the invalid filename and
passing it to smtp32. It's just not logging anything that IMail passes to
No other LOGFILE entries. The drive is there (it's a network mapped
drive actually). I can copy files back and forth on it.
This is the same issue I referred you to on the IMail Forum. The
service accounts need rights to the share (and you should use the UNC
path).
--Sandy
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:11:23 -0500
Sanford Whiteman said something about Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] LOGFILE action:
No other LOGFILE entries. The drive is there (it's a network mapped
drive actually). I can copy files back and forth on it.
This is the same issue I referred you to on
How are you mapping the drive? If you are not logged in the drive would
not be there when the services are started.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
FYI, I had an issue last week where I couldn't get an IMail program
alias to run a command within a VB script that called another script.
Clearly this was an issue with IMail not calling things in the proper
context and others have reported similar issues. It's possible that if
everything else
Administrator is generally logged in to the machine. This is driving me
nuts because I'm a linux guy. I'm learning a lot more about Windows
networking/file sharing than I wanted to just messing with these log files.
Yes, I use Explorer on the iwn2K box to map the drive. I set it to log in
as
Administrator is generally logged in to the machine.
That's no more meaningful than 'root is generally logged on to the
machine' would be in the *nix world.
The current interactive user can have mapped drives and network access
that service account--the user that appears in the Services
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 17:06:14 -0500
Sanford Whiteman said something about Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] LOGFILE action:
Administrator is generally logged in to the machine.
That's no more meaningful than 'root is generally logged on to the
machine' would be in the *nix world.
The current
Many people on the abuse newsgroups consider them spam, and none of them
consider them to be legitimate.
See:
http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/wordofmouth.asp
and this link (if it survives the email):
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=group:news.admin.net-abuse.*+%22WordofMouth
Scott,
What do you think about creating the Subject line if it doesn't exist. I
too prefer just to mark the subject line, rather than any holding or
deleting.
Could we put this in as a feature request?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for the info Andrew. I was inclined to block them initially, now I
more than likely will.
Marc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:24 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE:
Darin,
Scott corrected me shortly after my post. Declude does create a
Subject line when none is found. It was a bug somewhere (Declude,
IMail or otherwise) that created the situation where there was no
Subject present after being scanned with Declude (if that's what
happened).
Matt
Darin
Hmmm...Where does the problem lie, Declude or
IMail? Has it been fixedin post-1.75 Decludeorpost-8.01
IMail?
These account for about half of the 6% of spam that
slips through my current weighting.The rest I don't currently have
tests for, but fixing this alone would improve my results to
18 matches
Mail list logo
