Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Issues with Windows 2003 FTP service

2006-01-04 Thread Matt
Good morning all, I figured that I might save those that might respond some time...I found and fixed the issue. Turns out that the MS SMTP part of the metabase was still corrupt in some way...not sure exactly how...and this was causing FTP of all things to behave very, very slowly (while MS

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Issues with Windows 2003 FTP service

2006-01-04 Thread Panda Consulting S.A. Luis Alberto Arango
Thanks a lot for the follow up and answer to your own post. It may help us in the future. You are very kind. I am glad you were able to solve the problem. regards Luis Arango -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: MiƩrcoles,

[Declude.JunkMail] Spammer IP Range

2006-01-04 Thread Dave Beckstrom
We're seeing spam from 198.145.23.1 - 198.145.23.254 This link will show you some of the other domains they're using. http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchBy=organizationsearchString=Universi ty%20of%20Portland Funny thing is the IPs are supposed to belong to the university of Portland.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spammer IP Range

2006-01-04 Thread Ncl Admin
Perhaps you/others might want to add this url to your toolbox. http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=198.145.23.0 Palin Aquisitions Inc. PALIN-198-145 (NET-198-145-0-0-1) 198.145.0.0 - 198.145.255.255 MRC Marketing 198-145-23-0 (NET-198-145-23-0-1)

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spammer IP Range

2006-01-04 Thread Dave Beckstrom
Whoa! Very cool. Seems to be more accurate than senderbase too. Thank you! Ironically, those B*stards at MRC Marketing are about 30 miles from my house. I wonder what they would do if I showed up on their door tomorrow to chat with them about their spamming? -Original Message-

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spammer IP Range

2006-01-04 Thread Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Ironically, those B*stards at MRC Marketing are about 30 miles from my house. I wonder what they would do if I showed up on their door tomorrow chat with them about their spamming? My guess is they would probably have you arrested - but depending on how your conversation went it might be

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] F-prot

2006-01-04 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
FRISK has just updated F-Prot for Windows to 3.16e and this purports to include enhanced scanning capability for malformed WMF that appear as other graphic formats. The subscription login server is down with HTTP error 500 again. Andrew 8) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Declude.JunkMail] My hyperthreading test with Declude 2.0.6.16 (and plugins)

2006-01-04 Thread Matt
This came up several times in the past, and I finally got around to testing my dual Xeon server with hyperthreading turned off. I had read in some places (like Tom's Hardware I believe), that certain multi-threaded server applications did not perform as well with hyperthreading as without

[Declude.JunkMail] RBL warning

2006-01-04 Thread Gary Steiner
Based on the following header lines... X-RBL-Warning: CBL: Blocked - see http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=222.173.57.68; X-RBL-Warning: DSBL: http://dsbl.org/listing?222.173.57.68; X-RBL-Warning: MXRATE-BLOCK: http://www.mxrate.com/lookup/refused.asp?ipaddress=222.173.57.68; X-RBL-Warning:

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] F-prot

2006-01-04 Thread Gary Steiner
Also the press release that they circulated said 3.16d, but the link on their web site says 3.16e. Original Message From: Colbeck, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:08 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] F-prot

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL warning

2006-01-04 Thread Sanford Whiteman
Where does the message Blocked - see http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=222.173.57.68; or 68.57.173.222.blacklist.spambag.org come from? Is this something that comes from the blacklist, or is it defined by Declude? It's a DNS text (TXT) record

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RBL warning

2006-01-04 Thread Matt
These are the text records returned from the blacklist. It might also be Declude inserting the full lookup in the place of a text record when none is present. This behavior is created when you set an action on a test to WARN in the appropriate JunkMail file like so: CBL WARN You can