RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Earthlink Porn Spam

2004-11-02 Thread Mark E. Smith
Matt, Can you resend that filter? I checked on the archive and the attachment isn't there. Thanks. Mark From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 12:36 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Earthlink Porn Spam

2004-11-02 Thread Matt
Mark, mail-archive.com converted the text attachment to just a part of the message if you wish to cut and paste it from there. http://www.mail-archive.com/declude.junkmail%40declude.com/msg21757.html Matt Mark E. Smith wrote: Matt, Can you resend that filter? I checked on

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Earthlink Porn Spam

2004-11-02 Thread Mark E. Smith
Matt, Thanks -- didn't see that. Can you post your (ALL) and (LAST) global configs and a brief explanation of how you're using them? Thanks Mark From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 9:31 AMTo: [EMAIL

[Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters

2004-11-02 Thread Keith Johnson
After reviewing my Debug log, I found that the FromFiles are run first. Obviously, most email is spoofed and therefore will not show up, however, does Declude actually check fromfile for the mailfrom line or what it shows up as the X-Declude-Sender line? If it is indeed the X-Declude-Sender, it

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters

2004-11-02 Thread R. Scott Perry
After reviewing my Debug log, I found that the FromFiles are run first. Obviously, most email is spoofed and therefore will not show up, however, does Declude actually check fromfile for the mailfrom line or what it shows up as the X-Declude-Sender line? Both. The X-Declude-Sender: header

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ALL vs LAST

2004-11-02 Thread Scott Fisher
Matt would certainly be able to explain it better than I, but I'll give it a shot. I can't dig up previous discussions (circa July 2004) on the mail-archive either... A regular ip4r test will test all all of the IP address hops (up to the number defiend by HOPCOUNT).Unless it has

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.56 released

2004-11-02 Thread Nick Hayer
On 1 Nov 2004 at 19:08, Sanford Whiteman wrote: Sandy, Dunno what I did but in moving to SA 3x from 2.61 I cannot get spamd to run. Any ideas? The error is can't execute /user/bin/spamd.. THanks! -Nick Hayer All, SPAMC32 has been updated to more easily function as a weight test in

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.56 released

2004-11-02 Thread Sanford Whiteman
Dunno what I did but in moving to SA 3x from 2.61 I cannot get spamd to run. Any ideas? The error is can't execute /user/bin/spamd.. That path looks a little out-of-the-ordinary, that's for sure. Is there a 'spamd' in that path? Is that the only error? --Sandy

[Declude.JunkMail] Slightly OT: Mail size for gateways

2004-11-02 Thread Mark E. Smith
In one of my configurations, I'm running Imail/Declude in a Gateway only setup for an Exchange system. I was reviewing some of my DLAnalyzer logs and notices a number of single messages that were 51mb, 22mb, 30mb, etc. Since there's no way (that I've found) to prohibit the SMTP send size,

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Slightly OT: Mail size for gateways

2004-11-02 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Limit in Exchange. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark E. Smith Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail]

Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.56 released

2004-11-02 Thread Nick
On 2 Nov 2004 at 17:56, Sanford Whiteman wrote: On 2 Nov 2004 at 17:56, Sanford Whiteman wrote: Yes that is the only error and yes 'spamd' is in the path. I noticed spamd is like 73k and the old ver was ~ 53k. Cygwin seems fine - its just afer I did the SA install things broke so I'm wondering

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Slightly OT: Mail size for gateways

2004-11-02 Thread Mark E. Smith
Yup. We do this but I was just trying to think of a way to do it on the external relayers (Imail/Declude). From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists)Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:42 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:

[Declude.JunkMail] 8.13 ???

2004-11-02 Thread Serge
there was a report on a bug with 8.13 messing up the headers (to, from ??? ) do you guys recommend staying with 8.12 ? --- [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

Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.56 released

2004-11-02 Thread Eric Krichbaum
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SpamdOnWindows Directions still worked fine for me with 3.0.1 At 07:10 PM 11/2/2004, you wrote: On 2 Nov 2004 at 17:56, Sanford Whiteman wrote: On 2 Nov 2004 at 17:56, Sanford Whiteman wrote: Yes that is the only error and yes 'spamd' is in the path. I noticed

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Slightly OT: Mail size for gateways

2004-11-02 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
There is. J Since the explosion of dictionary type attach spam, it is not recommended to have the gateway accept all. You can do this by configuring the domain on Imail, then all the users are aliases for the users on Exchange, which via a Recipient policy will have 2 SMTP addresses,