Thanks for pointing me to the right place.
Burzin
At 05:51 PM 12/18/2003, you wrote:
1. Does anyone have stats. on false positives v. uncaught spam for
various tests. Am I correct in understanding that
tests with ratios closer to zero are more accurate?
Right now, I believe the best source
Hello,
1. Does anyone have stats. on false positives v. uncaught spam for various
tests. Am I correct in understanding that
tests with ratios closer to zero are more accurate?
2. Can someone point me to Scott's November Spam Statistics post. I
couldn't find it in the Declude archive.
1. Does anyone have stats. on false positives v. uncaught spam for
various tests. Am I correct in understanding that
tests with ratios closer to zero are more accurate?
Right now, I believe the best source is:
2. Can someone point me to Scott's November Spam Statistics post. I
couldn't
Hi,
I'm getting a lot of false positives because of HELOBOGUS and MAILFROM issues.
I know there probably has been discussion here about this already. Is there a
resolution? How do I get around this? I'm catching email from AOL, Roadrunner,
Adelphia, etc.
See below.
Thanks, andy
I'm getting a lot of false positives because of HELOBOGUS and MAILFROM issues.
If you are running v1.76, you should download the latest interim release
from http://www.declude.com/release/176i/declude.exe . This is happening
as one of the many side-effects of bad old Verisign's attempt to
of the product make it all work it. Greatly
appreciated.
Thanks, Andy
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] false positives
I'm getting a lot of false positives because
Wow, that changes a lot. I knew something was going on with Verisign. Is
there a technical description somewhere of what they did so I can catch up?
Actually, they got threatened by ICANN and sued by other companies, and
finally gave up. So DNS is back the way it should, albeit with minor
New to list...
We are considering purchasing Declude Junkmail.
I am concerned about false positives the time
required to deal with them.
Of those of currently runing Declude Junkmail,
what is your rate of false postives and how
do you
: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] False Positives
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Brantley
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] False
I am concerned about false positives the time
required to deal with them.
Of those of currently runing Declude Junkmail,
what is your rate of false postives and how
do you best manage the false postives?
For BEST results, get the PRO version.
Everyone waging this spam fight is concerned
] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kami Razvan
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 10:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] False Positives
Hi db:
If you are concerned about false positives I strongly strongly suggest you
look at this product as an add-on to Declude
When I checked last month I was doing about 1 in 20,000 (.005%), but this takes some
fairly sophisticated tuning.
Dan
On Friday, July 11, 2003 9:18, Douglas Brantley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
New to list...
We are considering purchasing Declude Junkmail.
I am concerned
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [Declude.JunkMail] false positives
I route e-mail which fail my several tests to another mailbox using the
ROUTETO command in the $default$.junkmail file. I have been sifting
through
these messages looking for false positives and I would like to know the
easiest
I use the ROUTETO command and I view them through web messaging. Should I
view them another way?
That's up to you -- using the ROUTETO action, they are treated as regular
E-mail, and the methods of handling them are based solely on the type of
mail client you are using.
Since I have been
I route e-mail which fail my several tests to another mailbox using the
ROUTETO command in the $default$.junkmail file. I have been sifting through
these messages looking for false positives and I would like to know the
easiest way (or preferred method) of sending the false positives to the
Any recommendations?
I have been using Spam Review for about a week now.
It is listed on the Declude site.
It is a program that allows you to see the headers, subject line and body.
Buttons at the top to choose what you want to do, including return to queue,
which would cause the message to
I route e-mail which fail my several tests to another mailbox using the
ROUTETO command in the $default$.junkmail file. I have been sifting through
these messages looking for false positives and I would like to know the
easiest way (or preferred method) of sending the false positives to the
I route e-mail which fail my several tests to another mailbox using the
ROUTETO command in the $default$.junkmail file. I have been
sifting through
these messages looking for false positives and I would like to know the
easiest way (or preferred method) of sending the false positives to the
In the case of SPAMHEADERS, that test will fail on E-mail that has legal
headers (but ones which are common in spam and rarely ever seen with
legitimate mail clients). The most common problem is that the web
programmers don't add a Message-ID: header -- the RFCs require that they
have one,
We're getting SPAMHEADERS failing that have a Message-ID: header, like
this;
Message-Id: 200205220850921.SM01366@shared1
Is there something wrong with this Message-Id: header, or is this failing
for some other reason? We also get a lot of BADHEADERS failures on email
we
programmatically
We're getting SPAMHEADERS failing that have a Message-ID: header, like this;
Message-Id: 200205220850921.SM01366@shared1
Is there something wrong with this Message-Id: header, or is this failing
for some other reason?
There are a lot of other reasons that the E-mail could fail the SPAMHEADERS
Hello...
Installed JunkMail last week and I'm getting some interesting spamheader
false positives. Some of the more interesting ones are newsletters from:
ORACLE, SOPHOS, and SYMANTEC!
I must trigger for Spamheaders since there are far too many real spam
messages failing only the Spamheader
Installed JunkMail last week and I'm getting some interesting spamheader
false positives. Some of the more interesting ones are
newsletters from: ORACLE, SOPHOS, and SYMANTEC!
Unfortunately, a lot of web mailers are thrown together (the boss thinks
that their web programmer is a programmer,
If anyone would understand that then well world be so much easier.
Get it when someone like microsoft don't support postmaster and
abuse.. Their mailservers don't have any rev dns configured and to
boot has invalid headers (this was what I saw on a MSN passport
lost password requests that got
Yup. I doubt I'll ever do any deleting. Except for one president who
insists I HOLD for him (damn the torpedoes, boy!), everyone else gets
SUBJECT for everything except Badheaders and Routing, which I wait to see
if they Weight10 from any other failure before they get SUBJECT.
That MS info is
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dale
McDiarmid
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 10:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] False positives for Spamheaders
Yup. I doubt I'll ever do any deleting. Except for one president who
insists I HOLD for him
I'm new to Declude and have been roadtesting the software to see what
gets flagged and what does not. I've been getting a lot of false
positives on 'BADHEADER' and 'SPAMHEADERS', mainly from various email
lists that we subscribe to.
Is this normal?
When it comes to the subscription services,
I'm including the headers from one message that has been flagged as having bad
headers. It's actually being sent from one of our servers using WebBoard.
Received: from susan [206.191.24.134] by sirc.ca
(SMTPD32-7.05) id A2FD9CF70106; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:10:05 -0500
To: (Recipients of 'news'
Message-Id: doesn't use FQDN... for one thing
-Josh
On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 13:21, Susan Duncan wrote:
I'm including the headers from one message that has been flagged as having bad
headers. It's actually being sent from one of our servers using WebBoard.
Received: from susan
29 matches
Mail list logo
