Delivery failed 20 attempts: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unexpected connection response from server:
451 Message temporarily deferred - 4.16.50
-
Getting emails saying they can't email anybody at yahoo.. Very random. Diff
domains. I looked over everything, noticed some little errors.. But I
can't
Yes. It's been going on for about 2 days or so now. Was discussed in the
Imail list. Yahoo claims that the problem is due to overwhelming spam
traffic. Running the dnsstuff email test against a Yahoo account yields a
response of 'successful connection but got an unknown greeting' from all 15
of
Yeah, what Matt said.
Message splitting before junkmail filtering would
bepunishing for CPU time and somewhat more for disk time; message
splitting for the sake of whitelisting (or alternate actions)after
junkmail filtering would be an incremental cost.
And message splitting before
Hi,
Declude apparently has problems correctly identifying the location of
headers if a mail is malformed.
I wonder whether it is confused by single CRs or single LFs or LF/CR in the
header.
Clearly, Imail and Outlook knew where the body of the message was - but
Declude appended its own
Hi,
I'm running my first
few tests.
ISSUE 1 -
Mail Headers
My mail headers now include
X-Declude-RefID:
I never requested
that header in my config file!
ISSUE 2 -
Log Files
LOGLEVEL MID and
HIGH is no longer recording messages in the DEC*.log. (The message was a
whitelisted
I have
been getting a lot of spam reciently. The subjects are typical and the From
always displays as a common first name.
For each
of these messages, I see no declude content. The ip and the address are
not excluded or whitelisted and if it were an xheader should say it was.
For
Will,
Use Notepad to check the tail end of the file. The Declude
headers may be at the end of the file. If the Declude headers are at the end of
the file, note whether or not:
1. The Received: lines appear
normal
2. There may or may not be some X-Header lines immediately
after the
A new tag (whitelistunique) which
only would whitelist if the email had a single recipient would solve the
problem and be much safer.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006
11:45 AM
To:
