I think some folks had some custom rules
that did this, but I think they also looked for numbers between dashes, such as
201-34-98-103..xxx
Maybe some others can shed a bit more
light than I J
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Geiser
Sent:
Bud Durland has written a nice external test called
HELOISIP. (see attached message)
For further information search for "HELOISIP" or "new test"
in the archive.
Markus
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan
GeiserSent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:28
I have noticed that some of the spam getting thru
is because a I have several in my whitelist and even though it is not addressed
to them it sends it on because the whitelisted email is in the CC or
BCC...
Isn't there any way to whitelist only if it is
addressed to that person in the To:
On 19 May 2004 at 9:04, Richard Farris wrote:
Kinda - there is a test called
BYPASSWHITELIST
http://www.mail-
archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg17561.html
Hope this helps!
-Nick Hayer
I have noticed that some of the spam getting thru is because a I have
several in my whitelist and even
Search the archives I also wrote an exteranl test but it passes the %helo%
string from declude. It is a .net 1.1 app and does not add any load to my
server processing. I created my own test based on list suggestions and Buds
mention that he did not know if he would have time to make the changes.
OH if anyone wants the exe let me know and I will post it on my HoldAnalyzer
Site.
Search the archives I also wrote an exteranl test but it passes the %helo%
string from declude. It is a .net 1.1 app and does not add any load to my
server processing. I created my own test based on list
I was inspired by Whitelisted- getting thru because I've seen this
problem on my network as well, but have not been brave enough to mess
around with settings that would cause our whitelisted users to call up
because they were missing mail. My questions is, in a
per-domain/per-user JunkMail Pro
Darrell:
Your technique assigns a weight of -100 to the mail if it contains a certain
email address as the recipient?
Once the mail has a weight of -100 (adjusted by any failed tests) - how does
that PREVENT the email from being delivered to all the OTHER recipients?
I'm not clear how the
Andy,
This works because the action on the Postmaster test is ROUTETO back to the
postmaster.
How it works
[1] Lowers the weight of the email by 100 so that the message will not be held
or deleted in our system
[2] Re-routes the message back to the postmaster only if the postmaster account
was
Uh - INTERESTING.
I need to read up on ROUTETO. I didn't realize it could be used to
eliminate extraneous CC/BCC users.
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
http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Is this a job for Declude?
--
Roger Heath
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rleeheath.com
---
[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
I know Scott's out (hope he's enjoying it!), but
wanted to post this one while I was thinking about it.
I would like to be able to group tests together and
give a weight to the group rather than the individual tests. That way if
one or multiple tests fail, only one weight is added.
This
My feeling is since it can be done to some extent using testsfailed filters, I'd
rather see development on things we can't do. The NOTCONTAINS arguement has simplified
these COMBO filters so most only take one filter to perform.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL
Yes, but only for Pro licenses and custom filtering. Using weighting groups
could allow Standard licenses to do this, as well as being much faster than
text processing.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: Message
Hi
Scott:
a) I think the
"LASTACTION' log entry is rendering the "Deleting Spam from/to" log entry
obsolete. It contains the action, the from and to to - all information that is
redundant with other log lines (see "red" sample below)
b) Once an email is
"bypassing
Hi Darin -
On 19 May 2004 at 15:10, Darin Cox wrote:
I would like to be able to group tests together and give a weight to
the group rather than the individual tests. That way if one or
multiple tests fail, only one weight is added.
The answer is:
I realize others have found a workaround
True...but that only works for Pro licenses (for test filtering), which
those on Standard can't use. Also, this sort of group weighting would be
much more efficient than text matching.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Gotcha. Did not know of the standard ver limits
Beside the limitation for pro users (who knows if future COMBO test - if
they become true - will be available in the standard version?) I consider
the TESTSFAILED/END solution a little bit inflexible and inefficient and
so as Matt (who has
On 19 May 2004 at 16:59, Darin Cox wrote:
Yes, but only for Pro licenses and custom filtering. Using weighting
groups could allow Standard licenses to do this, as well as being much
faster than text processing.
Darin.
Gotcha. Did not know of the standard ver limits
-Nick
-
All,
I've posted exchange2aliases, a VBScript that helps automate the
cumbersome task of rejecting unknown users for remote domains. The
script is designed specifically for those running IMail MXs, with or
without Declude, in front of Exchange mailbox servers.
In order to use the
20 matches
Mail list logo
