Scott,
FYI, in testing I found that the %WEIGHT% is being passed in, however
it seems to be 500 points higher than in reality, with all the weights
showing up as being between 500 and 600 over the space of my test.
Thanks,
Matt
Matt wrote:
Scott,
I've been playing with this for
Sandy et al.,
Regarding how peering is handled, that sucks! It was a bit of a kludge
anyway, more than most at least.
I just got mail bombed on both servers by three different ISP relays.
The recipient address was invalid (sent to and from itself), and if I
had MS SMTP/ORF configured on both
Scott, since SpamCop has now setup a RBL to support URI checking, is this
something you will consider adding support for in Declude JunkMail?
Thanks for mentioning this -- I'm surprised that this is the first I've
heard of it. We will likely add support for this to Declude JunkMail.
Thanks :)
R. Scott Perry wrote:
FYI, in testing I found that the %WEIGHT% is being passed in, however
it seems to be 500 points higher than in reality, with all the
weights showing up as being between 500 and 600 over the space of my
test.
There is a new interim 1.79i4 that fixes this.
Cheer up :)
No problem. Just wondered about the 8 minutes. :-)
I know that in Declude we have a great tool and I can't have it 100% as I
want.
Hope your external test will work fine and you can add additional tests.
As we check for message sizes in SpamChk for over a year now maybe I can
On 7 Apr 2004 at 17:20, R. Scott Perry wrote:
There is now an interim 1.79i3 at http://www.declude.com/interim that
changes the %WEIGHT% variable so that it will include the current
weight if it is used before the total weight is calculated.
Scott,
For me this is what makes me so loyal to
Hi Scott,
You know my problem with numerous false positives caused by changing IP
Blacklist results for several italian ISP-Ips. Occassionaly I can see such
false positives now also for certain austrian Ips
Would it by possible to specify certain IPBYPASS-COUNTRIES and if the mail
oroginates
Hello, All,
Just looking for a little feedback. I have
the following entries in my configuration files...
-
GLOBAL.CFG
FILTER-COUNTRYfilterD:\IMail\declude\JunkMail.23.Filter.Country.txtx00
JunkMail.23.Filter.Country.txt
COUNTRIES5CONTAINStw#
Taiwan
srp.com\$default$.junkmail
Just looking for a little feedback. I have the following entries in my
configuration files...
JunkMail.23.Filter.Country.txt
COUNTRIES 5 CONTAINS tw # Taiwan
The problem here is that the list of countries never contains tw #
Taiwan. If you change the line to:
COUNTRIES 5 CONTAINS tw
then
You know my problem with numerous false positives caused by changing IP
Blacklist results for several italian ISP-Ips. Occassionaly I can see such
false positives now also for certain austrian Ips
Would it by possible to specify certain IPBYPASS-COUNTRIES and if the mail
oroginates from one of
Scott,
So we can't use comments in flat text files that are you used as filter
files? Or do they just to be on their own line?
Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 12:28 PM
Subject: Re:
So we can't use comments in flat text files that are you used as filter
files? Or do they just to be on their own line?
Comments must be on their own line in the filter files (otherwise, you
couldn't do something like have a filter for SPECIAL ###OFFER###).
Hello, All,
Unless this resource has been created and I missed it I'm assuming there's
still a need in the Declude user community for this. To that end I did some
research and found Wiki hosting site which offers both free and paid hosting
accounts. I believe my plan for the Wiki would keep it
One of our clients requested for us to Whitelist one of their customers... I
did it yesterday, and this morning it went (again) to the spam folder I
copied part of the header message (changed the names/IP's to protect the
'innocent').
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: Whitelisted
X-RCPT-TO: [EMAIL
One of our clients requested for us to Whitelist one of their customers... I
did it yesterday, and this morning it went (again) to the spam folder I
copied part of the header message (changed the names/IP's to protect the
'innocent').
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: Whitelisted
This line means that the
Does some one know what this means in plain English?
=?Windows-1252?Q?Lu=A0:_RE
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
---
[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
Hmmm...looks like a reference to the 7th Crusade which lasted from
1248-1254. Like all of the other crusades, it was launched in the hopes of
finding the Golden Windows or, as some call it today, the Holy Grail.
We see the clear reference to Windows, or Grail, but some Latin and/or
Spanish
So are you saying this has nothing to do with the 7th Crusade
a little strange humor after a strange night
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Translate
8-0
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Translate
Why did this fail HELOBOGUS:
X-RBL-Warning: HELOBOGUS: Domain mail.sbapro.com has no MX or A records
[0301].
Query: sbapro.com. Query type: Any record
Declude JunkMail looks at the host name (mail.sbapro.com), not the parent
(otherwise, it would look for com if the HELO/EHLO was
Hmmm...looks like a reference to the 7th Crusade which lasted from
1248-1254. Like all of the other crusades, it was launched in the hopes of
finding the Golden Windows or, as some call it today, the Holy Grail.
We see the clear reference to Windows, or Grail, but some Latin and/or
Spanish
We will look into this. However, since the geolocation (IP-country
functionality) is still considered experimental, it probably
will not be a high priority.
Well for an experimental feature I can confirm that it works realy good
and with 40% of right results by 6% of false positives it is
Is there a description of what the NOLEGITCONTENT test looks for? It is
adding -5 to a lot of mails and I would like to understand it better.
It looks for information that is rarely ever seen in spam, that appears
more frequently in legitimate E-mail. The idea is to help ensure that
legitimate
This test should NOT be used to detect spam! It will be triggered Declude
JunkMail does not detect any legitimate content in an E-mail. Note that a
lot of legitimate E-mail will fail this test, but almost all spam will fail
it. Like the IPNOTINMX test, this test is good for helping reduce false
Lukasz Kaminski would like to recall the message, [Declude.JunkMail]
NOLEGITCONTENT Test.
attachment: winmail.dat
Hi,
Is there a description of what the NOLEGITCONTENT test looks for? It is
adding -5 to a lot of mails and I would like to understand it better.
Thanx
Goran Jovanovic
The LAN Shoppe
2345 Yonge Street, Suite 302
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2E5
Phone: (416) 440-1167 x-2113
Rolling Eyes
If you have seen one Crusade, you have seen them all.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sharyn Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 12:38 PM
Scott,
Would you say that this test is still a valid test? Is it still worth
-5 when the e-mail does not fail it? If both SPAM and HAM are almost
never tripping it perhaps it is a moot point anyway as all mail will
have the -5 added to it.
Goran Jovanovic
The LAN Shoppe
2345
Markus,
Thanks for the stats. I've actually been keeping copies of all of the
false positives that we are reprocessing since Monday. Here's a break
down by the sender (considering that some newsletters and ads are sent
to multiple recipients and that throws off the numbers):
1 - 0.5 KB
1 -
Scott,
I'm wondering if the following double hit for SPAMHEADERS and BADHEADERS
for the same code is related to the same problem (an invalid date
header) and if failing both tests is intentional?
Out of 4,000 messages held in the last week scoring between 10 and 24 on
my system (higher scores
You're just baiting me to see if I'll go wacko again, aren't you? SPAM,
HAM...must resist...
From what I've seen, it's still a very useful test for reducing false
positives.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Goran Jovanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
I'm wondering if the following double hit for SPAMHEADERS and BADHEADERS
for the same code is related to the same problem (an invalid date header)
and if failing both tests is intentional?
It's due to two problems -- whenever both tests fail, there are two (or
more) problems. An E-mail will
I have the above header in my mail. Just showed up not too long ago.
I have JM Pro and Visur Standard. Virus Standard is running and I have
disabled JM Pro by renaming my global.cfg.
Whats happening here? I've got a service agreement.
That's a bug in an old beta -- if you upgrade to the
I have the above header in my mail. Just showed up not too long ago.
I have JM Pro and Visur Standard. Virus Standard is running and I have disabled JM
Pro by renaming my global.cfg.
Whats happening here? I've got a service agreement.
--
---
Matt
Scott,
Thanks for the explanation. I was just making sure. I agree that the
logic is sound, it was just the code that was confusing. Strangely
enough the only time this code comes up, which is rare, both tests fail.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I'm wondering if the following double hit for
Thanks for the explanation. I was just making sure. I agree that the
logic is sound, it was just the code that was confusing. Strangely enough
the only time this code comes up, which is rare, both tests fail.
That's because the code has a list of the flaws that Declude JunkMail finds
in the
If any one out there likes playing with hardware and has time, I have an
Adaptec 29160 that I removed from service as it was showing parity errors
and would cause drives to dismount. Turns out it is an OEM board that my
previous employer had purchased as a BULK item about 2 years ago.
Card is
Ok, looks like I finally got it all together. I tried to code this up
so that it is flexible, allowing an administrator to specify as many
different sizes as he or she wishes, and opt whether or not to use the
weight skipping mechanism. Here's how it works...
There are three arguments to the
Hi scott
The external test matt just wrote is an unvaluable tool for junkmail
It also gives us some insight on how to write our own tests to achieve many
many things
One of them will however need the %RemoteRecep% variable already available
in delude virus
Is is also available or can it be
39 matches
Mail list logo
