Is it possible to turn on Declude Hijack for a
single domain? I read where I can list the ip addresses to allow to send
unlimited messages however, with over 60 hosted domains this would be very time
consuming.
Thank you,Josh
SpamCop blocked the ActiveServerPages list at 15seconds.com (which is not a
source of spam):
List-Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-RBL-Warning: SPAMCOP: Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?
The problem with SpamCop is, it's only as reliable as it's users. It would
appear that
Hello, All,
If I have a FROMFILE type test in my GLOBAL.CFG...
FROMFILE fromfile D:\iMail\declude\JunkMail.FromFile.txt x 12 0
...and I have some entries in the corresponding flat text file like below...
# JunkMail.FromFile.txt
#
# == Add Points To
Is it possible to turn on Declude Hijack for a single domain?
We don't like that, because it allows spammers a way to bypass Declude
Hijack. However, you can use a line ALLOWADDR [EMAIL PROTECTED] to allow
an E-mail address to send unlimited E-mail.
FROMFILE fromfile D:\iMail\declude\JunkMail.FromFile.txt x 12 0
# -- Strings In Host Names
@bounce.
@bounceto.
-platinum.
This will work.
When FROMFILE does its thing is it going to search the FROM address in a
CONTAINS type manner (which would allow all of the above entries to have a
Check this out
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5145065.html
-Dave Doherty
Skywaves, Inc.
---
[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],
Title: strange log with minweight
hi,
on loglevel high i found some stranges lines for some of my counterbalance filters. in those filters i use minweight -45. so i expect somthing like
Filter: Set min weight to -45
but i found:
1/22/2004 14:54:26 Qd5ff0626008e60e7 Filter: Set min
Scott,
I've been laying low on this one for a while, but BADHEADERS hits for
not having a proper To address is commonly producing false positives on
my system with personal E-mail, some of which will cause the messages to
be held. The issue here (just in case it was forgotten) is that
Title: Message
Thanks to everyone who responded with some advice to my
problem, even including one phone call. It appears the problem
began when I added the "FORGINGVIRUS bagel" line to my virus.cfg
file. Following Scott's advice, andupdating to the newest interim
release has fixed the
How would you decode the zipped attachment to see what it is doing? It is a
java script.
The attachment (unzipped) was attached to an junkmail with a bunch of
gibberish in the HTML body.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
politicking.zip
Description: Zip compressed
on loglevel high i found some stranges lines for some of my counterbalance
filters. in those filters i use minweight -45. so i expect somthing like
Filter: Set min weight to -45
but i found:
1/22/2004 14:54:26 Qd5ff0626008e60e7 Filter: Set min weight to .
You can safely ignore that.
Would you have to specify individual address or could you specify domain?
ie. ALLOWADDR @domain.com
Thank you,
Joshua Hughes
Sunline Team
941-206-7870
888-512-6100
http://www.sunline.net/
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
How would you decode the zipped attachment to see what it is doing? It is a
java script.
The attachment (unzipped) was attached to an junkmail with a bunch of
gibberish in the HTML body.
This one would be difficult. Unless you have good math skills and a lot of
patience, you would need to
Would you have to specify individual address or could you specify domain?
You would need to specify individual addresses. The ALLOWADDR option
requires a full E-mail address.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for
Title: Message
Hey guys, I asked this on Imail's list as well, but
thought I'd see what Declude users do/think:
What I'd like to be able to do, is block all mail
to a certain account, except from those addresses specified via AUTOWHITELIST.
Kind of a 'parental control'. Let's say I give my
Title: Message
Doug, that looks
very, very much like SWEN. TrendMicro records 3
variants:
http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default2.asp?m=qvirus=SWENalt=SWEN
Andrew.
-Original Message-From: Doug Anderson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 22,
I've been laying low on this one for a while, but BADHEADERS hits for not
having a proper To address is commonly producing false positives on my
system with personal E-mail, some of which will cause the messages to be
held. The issue here (just in case it was forgotten) is that Microsoft
Title: Message
Hello,
Is there way to
block this kind of emails? I am using lite version of
declude..
Cheers,
John
Received: from cmr-81-9-168-170.telecable.es
[81.9.168.170] by Jctweb.com (SMTPD32-6.06) id AF0537AE00B2; Thu, 22
Jan 2004 10:49:09 -0600Received: from 228.223.118.96 by
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well,
will allow a CC field with no To and it would previously produce the
same results, I mention this because you didn't mention the exception ,
only the BCC exception. People do of course send out to lists using the
CC field,
Thanks for the clarification.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Is there way to block this kind of emails? I am using lite version of
declude..
What you want to do here is not whitelist the spam. To do that, you can
temporarily remove the WHITELIST HABEAS line in the
\IMail\Declude\global.cfg file until Habeas sues the spammers. :)
By removing the
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well, will
allow a CC field with no To and it would previously produce the same
results, I mention this because you didn't mention the exception , only
the BCC exception. People do of course send out to lists using the CC
field,
Scott:
With the new
release- are these valid lines?
Body Whitelist
Contains some text
REVDNS
WhitelistEndswith
.domain.com
subject whitelist
startswith [Whitelist]
I guess if this is
the case the new whitelist just replaces the weight and all other filter syntax
hold.
Right?
Wrong?
That does look troublesome...however...
The following JavaScript function is very spammy and can be weighted
moderately. The only things that should FP on such a thing are Web
designers. I have never seen this used before, so even among Web
designers it should be rare.
BODY 5 CONTAINS
With the new release- are these valid lines?
BodyWhitelistContainssome text
REVDNSWhitelistEndswith.domain.com
subjectwhiteliststartswith[Whitelist]
I guess if this is the case the new whitelist just replaces the weight and
all other filter syntax hold.
That
I would like to see the SKIPIFWEIGHT option removed. If we had a
conditional option to stop when a specific weight is reached, then there
would be not need for SKIPIFWEIGHT. In addition, why would anyone use
SKIPIFWEIGHT on less than every test...and why would anyone define one
test with a
Very much appreciated. Back when I did a review of hits for this, I
think it was over 95% FP's. Even if that isn't accurate, it's
problematic enough to allow us to turn it off.
Thanks,
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well,
will
Todd,
Initially I didn't understand why the complexity was necessary, however
it really is in this case. We do gain by having the ability to set
SKIPIFWEIGHT according to individual tests, for instance, in my
negatively weighted PSEUDO-WHITE test, I set the SKIPIFWEIGHT higher
than elsewhere
Paul,
This isn't something that I would generally try to promote because of
the complexity of maintaining it in most cases, but for one's own
daughter, it might make perfect sense. Something of course though would
need to happen that caused her to get spam though, so it might not be
necessary
Hello Paul, Matt
Thursday, January 22, 2004, 1:36:55 PM, you wrote:
M Paul,
M This isn't something that I would generally try to promote
M because ofthe complexity of maintaining it in most cases, but for
M one's owndaughter, it might make perfect sense. Something of course
M though wouldneed
This isn't something that I would generally try to promote because
of the complexity of maintaining it in most cases, but for one's own
daughter, it might make perfect sense. Something of course though would
need to happen that caused her to get spam though, so it might not be
necessary at
There's no "TO" filter, and no "FROM" filter either, only ALLRECIPS and
MAILFROM (the SMTP Sender). I would like to have access to these
things though because there are some patterns that can't be done by way
of a HEADERS filter.
Anyway, you could use a filter file, but personally, I would
Scott -
Performance wise would one be better off maxing out the global config
[200 entries] with WHITELISTS and then use WHITELIST in a filter
file? OR the filter file exclusively?
Thanks
-Nick Hayer
Date sent: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:59:49 -0500
To:
Performance wise would one be better off maxing out the global config
[200 entries] with WHITELISTS and then use WHITELIST in a filter
file? OR the filter file exclusively?
The performance should be just about the same either way.
-Scott
---
Hi,
May be I'm must lucky - but yesterday I had:
HABEAS..50.04%
HIL...1961.57%
5 messages with HABEAS headers - but 195 mails that failed HABEAS' infringer
list.
Best Regards
Andy
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
Scott,
I have been away for some time and have been trying to get caught up on the
declude list (its the most active list I have).
Seems that there is a lot of chatter on the mailing list right now with
tests etc that are not in the manual. I am curious will a new manual be
released, or does
John-
Doesn't SKIPIFWEIGHT also defeat the logging of the skipped tests?
-Dave Doherty
Skywaves, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Clarification
I
Seems that there is a lot of chatter on the mailing list right now with
tests etc that are not in the manual. I am curious will a new manual be
released, or does anyone have any good explanations of some of these tests
on their sites?
The general rule of thumb is that the manual is updated to
Pardon my ignorance but what are people using to get the stats from junk
mail?
Jeff Kratka
*
TymeWyse Internet
P.O.Box 84 - 110 Ecklund St., Canyonville, OR 97417
tel/fax: (541) 839-6027 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: Message
Hi
Paul,
You
may want to try my whitelist/blacklist program. It isa per user
utility and has a strict mode where everything is blacklisted unless it is
specifically whitelisted. I use it extensively and many other postmasters
us it also. You can get more information and
Title: Message
Hi:
I noted the
following on the SPF site:
"In either case an
MTA should reject messages from null senders that have more than one
recipient."
Imail only allows to
either permit or deny null senders.But, the above statement sounds obvious
- an automated bounce message
As Jerry Pournelle has often said You may not get this level of service.
http://www.theregister.com/content/55/35044.html
I wonder if all the spammers have this guy on their 17 trillion addresses
CD. I could only hope.
Andrew 8)
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
Hi,
This was an excerpt from Dlanalyzer.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
HM Systems Software, Inc.
600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-
From:
I noted the following on the SPF site:
In either case an MTA should reject messages from null senders that have
more than one recipient.
Imail only allows to either permit or deny null senders. But, the above
statement sounds obvious - an automated bounce message would be directed
to the ONE
Scott:
So it seems like
with the new Whitelist filter the whitelist file that was supposed to be listed
in the $default$.junkmail is pretty much obsolete since we can
do:
mailfrom
whitelistcontains [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That should pretty
much do the same thing.. and we can keep all of our
So it seems like with the new Whitelist filter the whitelist file that was
supposed to be listed in the $default$.junkmail is pretty much obsolete
since we can do:
mailfrom whitelist contains
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
That should pretty much do the same thing.. and we can
If a filter is skipped by SKIPIFWEIGHT, at that point I am not concerned
about logging that filter, as I do not want it to run. Remember,
SKIPIFWEIGHT is only for filters.
However, what if a message gets a high weight early, but then would get a
negative weight from a filter? You took action
1. Place negative weight tests first.
2. While testing effectiveness of a single test, place it first or turn
off the stop processing flag for a period of time.
Todd Holt
Xidix Technologies, Inc
Las Vegas, NV USA
www.xidix.com
702.319.4349
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have never seen this used before, so even among Web designers it
should be rare.
That's a preferred syntax for Flash ActionScript. Can't tell you how
often it's used in general, but it's all over one of our projects. So
web shops, or those corresponding with same, should be wary. It has
Thought I'd warn everyone
Some different/newer (I haven't seen it before) versions of
two emails arefloating around
#1
From Microsoft Corporation Network Security
to Commercial customer
No subject
Attachment "UPGRADE88.exe"
It claims to be updates from microsoft.
#2
From Internet Delivery
50 matches
Mail list logo
