Hi There is a very important issue about Webshield when running as a
gateway.
If your webshields receive mails and forward to imail with declude.
Declude will not be able to correctly identfy spam mail.
This is not declude's fault.
WebShields does not forward correct headers to declude.
Here
Whatcha need Scott??
Thank you,
Aaron Caviglia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
VanTech.Net
www.vantech.net
Toll Free 800-872-3359
Phone 559-732-3952
Fax 559-732-1509
6707 W. Goshen Ave.
Visalia, CA 93291
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott
Thanks Scott -- I'll give that a go.
Greg
At 02:27 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Were getting a increase in emails with that contain viruses. I want to
block the sender but the sender address is being forged. I have the
remote IP/domain where the email's are coming from. Can I just include
Title: Message
Hi
Scott:
Shouldn't this message ID cause a "BADHEADERS"
failure:
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
since
"athlon" is not guaranteed to be a unique occurrence (because it's not a
FQDN)?
-Original Message-
Received:
from athlon [208.169.85.246] by hm-software.com
Shouldn't this message ID cause a BADHEADERS failure:
Message-ID:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
since athlon is not guaranteed to be a unique occurrence (because it's
not a FQDN)?
Technically, it should. :)
We used to have the BADHEADERS test check for this. However, the
Hi Rob
We plan to add regular expressions to SpamChk. This should be ready at
the end of july after we've finished some other tasks.
For all who doesn't know what are regular expressions:
With the following expression you can check if a string is a valid
email-Adress:
Ouch...
So the HELOBOGUS will apply the same logic and NO longer check for BOGUS
host names?
If not - then why doesn't the same logic apply?
Frankly, I rather prefer to have a test that does it advertises to do (e.g.,
check for BAD HEADERS), and then let ME decide via weights, how highly I
want
The message was delivered to 18 remote addresses.
I asked the question a couple of weeks earlier.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andyb
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
They were just talking about this on the Postfix list today, as well.
Wietse Venema is the developer of Postfix. Attached is a question regarding
the Message ID, and his response. Interesting that this issue came up on
both lists today.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry
They were just talking about this on the Postfix list today, as well.
Wietse Venema is the developer of Postfix. Attached is a question regarding
the Message ID, and his response. Interesting that this issue came up on
both lists today.
[Message from the Postfix list:]
The Message-ID header
I just upgraded today, so hadn't seen it b4
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 4:40 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] log entry question
The message was delivered to 18 remote addresses.
I asked the question a
We added about 350 users to our 2000+ user dual server configuration in the last week
and were doing pretty well until this afternoon. Suddenly the CPU load graph stopped
looking like its normal Donky Kong video game simulation (up and down) and more
resembled a 100% highway with a few dips.
Not yet, but I intend to try in a couple of weeks.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Forgive the intrusion (I just troll here, don't actually have JM yet),
but this idea seems flawed. If you quit testing once a certain weight
has been reached, wouldn't you cut off further testing that might reduce
that weight? In a system where a score can go up and down depending on
the
Hi Dan:
We had a similar problem. I posted a couple of messages regarding this very
issue. We were having CPU at 100% for minutes.. in one case when a mail
list hit our server with a lot of users receiving the message at the same
time the CPU was at 100% for almost an hour. We could not do
Hi,
This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
in the email as the attachment text has ! in it, I think the test
needs to be adjusted to not scan attachment bodies.
Jools
Received: from EMMAWILLIAMS [195.8.189.42] by mainstreamuk.com with
ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.00) id
Just before bringing our 3rd server into the fold, things quieted
down. While I've already ordered 2 new dual processor 1U's, I want to par
down (if not eliminate) the variables invovled:
1) If an external DB query slowed things down, delaying each Declude
process, would Declude still show
This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
in the email as the attachment text has ! in it, I think the test
needs to be adjusted to not scan attachment bodies.
Very interesting -- that's the first time I've ever seen a .PDF file that
was encoded in a way that was
Perhaps all of us Declude junkies out there would be willing to run your
web-server code on our unused bandwidth as peers -- that is unless you've
built something completely proprietary!
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May
Anything to be aware of when going from IMail Ver 6.06 on NT 4, to IMail Ver
8 on 2000?
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
20 matches
Mail list logo
