Hi Scott,
This is interesting. It slipped through my
filtering since we prepend the Subjectwith "SPAM[" and filter client-side
to ensure delivery of all valid email. However, with this one there's no
Subject line to prepend to.
What about a stronger test than BADHEADERS like
What is your HOLD or DELETE weights? That would have been deleted on my
servers. It has a weight of 39.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004
Hi John,
We don't hold or delete. We don't hold to reduce management costs, and we
haven't previously believed in deleting since we didn't want to take a
chance on deleting an FP. So far we've gotten good results with our
weighting with 95% marked and no FPs, but we have a small statistical
I don't know of any mail client or component that would send without a
Subject line.
I see them all the time. Usually, it's people who don't know any better,
like my mom!
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the
That's a totally different issue. A blank subject would still have a line
in the headers.
In this case there is actually no header line for the subject at all, blank
or otherwise, which may be why it triggered the BADHEADERS test.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Dave Doherty [EMAIL
As I can remember the latest "release" was from 07/23/2003.
(yes 6 months ago)
Normaly we've downloaded only releas versions because the
time between beta-tests and releases was relative short.But after the date
above there was only betas and"interims". In the meantime there was a lot
of
Markus,
Good ideas you have there. If I may comment briefly:
Dynamic disabling of resource-intensive tests would be an absolute
godsend. Since I have enabled filtering I went from a server that had
gobs of extra overhead to one that is taxed and often redlines both
processors. A load-smart
-- Forwarded message --
From: Colbeck, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:41:19 -0800
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Number of messages per day
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know about the qualities of the IMail Log Analyzer, but given lines
like
For
example:
Received: from mediasalon.de [62.142.106.43] by mail.zcom.it
(SMTPD32-7.15) id A9DB1DC0056; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:30:51 +0100Received: from
169.113.39.78 by smtp.kansli.tyreso.se;Sat,
24 Jan 2004 19:31:19 +From: "Taylor W. Penn" t_penn_wa@kansli.tyreso.seTo:
Well after spending time reading the archives (IMail/Declude) it seems that
I am going about the gateway hardware setup wrong. I have to much
money/time invested in Declude/Windows/Imail/Dell to ditch what I have and
go to something like IMGate. I know that people on this list run
Declude/Imail
Well after spending time reading the archives (IMail/Declude) it seems that
I am going about the gateway hardware setup wrong.
Have you changed the DNS line in your global.cfg file?
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution
John,
First off I would like to say thanks to you and thanks to the
others on this list and the Imail list that put effort and time in to
helping people. If you don't mind me asking I am assuming that you do
consulting for companies that run Imail at high volumes. Do you have
any example
My Dell will only hold 3 SCSI Drives and I can purchase the PERC4DI
128MB Raid Card add on. The help that I need is how should I set the
disk up with 3 Drives as a Gateway (incoming only, no mailboxes, no
POP, no WebMail) server? Redundancy doesn't matter I just need speed
and mail to
FYI,
For those of us using WinTail to view your log files in real time, the
developer has released a new version called BareTail with some very useful
features (pause,highlighting, etc..)
http://www.baremetalsoft.com/baretail/index.php
Also has a program called BareGrep for those of us who
14 matches
Mail list logo
