Are any of you seeing an increase in explicit porn getting past Declude and
Sniffer in the past few days.
We are seeing a disturbing increase that will only fail some minor weighted
test such as bad routing and often fail no test. They are almost dynamically
changing the spelling of the
Are any of you seeing an increase in explicit porn getting
past Declude and Sniffer in the past few days.
No.
Normaly 5 to 10 messages per month finish in my mailbox. I can't remember
one with pornographic content.
Any suggestions on how to get ahead of these guys and reduce
such
On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 11:27:33 AM, Woody wrote:
WGF Are any of you seeing an increase in explicit porn getting past Declude and
WGF Sniffer in the past few days.
WGF We are seeing a disturbing increase that will only fail some minor weighted
WGF test such as bad routing and often fail no
yes a large amount...thought it might just be my config...
gb
At 11:27 AM 7/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
Are any of you seeing an increase in explicit porn getting past Declude and
Sniffer in the past few days.
We are seeing a disturbing increase that will only fail some minor weighted
test such as
, July 21, 2004 11:30 AM
To: Woody G. Fussell
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Increase in porn?
On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 11:27:33 AM, Woody wrote:
WGF Are any of you seeing an increase in explicit porn getting past Declude
and
WGF Sniffer in the past few days.
WGF We are seeing a disturbing
On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 11:39:43 AM, Grant wrote:
GGDJ We are also seeing these very heavy the past few weeks. I forward them to
GGDJ the spam@ for sniffer on a regular basis, but they still seem to get thru on
GGDJ a regular basis. No solutions here...
I've checked both of your accounts.
]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Increase in porn?
yes a large amount...thought it might just be my config...
gb
At 11:27 AM 7/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
Are any of you seeing an increase in explicit porn getting past Declude
and
Sniffer in the past
On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 12:27:00 PM, Grant wrote:
GGDJ Yep, usually has to do something with video type stuff.
The good news is that in the last two rounds of updates I've done I
saw no more of this guys trash - so I think we've put a hurtin' on
him. The bad news is that he is probably the
I filter on the picture name and url in the mail.
Then I route the img source address to a null route so the customer will not see the
image. Just the holder in the message.
It helps on alot of these type of messages that have gotten thru.
Robert
-- Original Message
