Hello, All,
If a spam message has a header entry like...
X-Note: Sent with HELO [worldvillage.com] from Reverse DNS [[No Reverse
DNS]]
Does that mean that the message truly had no reverse dns ptr? Or was the
Reverse DNS ptr of the message [No Reverse DNS]?
It if matters the custom line in
Gee,
Me too, this is what I have been complaining about, and submitted an
unresolved trouble ticket [INN-34053] since the first 2.x release.
I've got it half working by changing my global config to:
WEIGHT20weightrangexxxx
WEIGHT32weightxxxx
fill in your
I can agree with you Fritz...
We too have had the same issues and in response to David Franco-Rocha
message, we DID submit to Declude support our problems with STILL no resolve
or further communication about it. [RNJ-98263]
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
It meant it had no Reverse DNS. Instead of a host name (from the PTR),
Declude returns the string:
[No Reverse DNS]
which you bracketed in another set of square brackets.
Best Regards
Andy
-Original Message-
If a spam message has a header entry like...
X-Note: Sent
Hi,
I don't have a WEIGHT overlap (I had checked that first).
In my case, I'm pretty certain it's a matter of ROUTETO outweighing DELETE.
I just had another case this morning, and that seems to be the common factor
in each one:
This mail failed almost every test in the world, yet with weight
On 2 Mar 2005 at 18:07, Darin Cox wrote:
Hi Darin,
2.05 will pass email that should have been deleted. The total weight
may be 3 times your delete weight and the email will still be
delivered.
Declude tech support is aware of the problem - and as far as I know
it is unresolved.
I am back to
Title: Message
Andy Schmidt wrote:
The message is NOT whitelisted (see log and
header), sothe bypass whitelisting WORKED. The log and headers look
differently, if whilelisting is effective.
...assuming that there isn't a bug. There is definitely something
strange here and several
It would be nice Declude would post this information instead of ignoring
requests or using not a priority as a result. The DELETE action is not
taking the action it should.
We too have reverted back to 1.82 as this version seems to be steady for us.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Title: Message
Hi
Matt:
I would also
assume that you are scoring tests such as SNIFFER, INV-URIBL and NJABLDYNA, but
it doesn't appear that these scores were added according to your headers
I
think I can explain most of that.
a) I
have several "combo" tests that do the actual
anyone?
Che Vilnonis
Application Developer
Advertising Systems Incorporated
8470C Remington Avenue
Pennsauken, NJ 08110
p: 856.488.2211
f: 856.488.1990
www.asitv.com
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail
It is on our end too...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Che Vilnonis
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:24 PM
To: Declude Email List
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
anyone?
Che Vilnonis
Application Developer
Advertising
I can't reach their web site site from here. It's 11:39am EST right now.
- Original Message -
From: Che Vilnonis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude Email List Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
anyone?
i've been trying since 11:15 ish. anyone manning the ship over there?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Geiser
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:40 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Is declude.com down?
I
Yes Declude is down. We are aware of the problem and working to resolve
this. We will be back up asap.
David B
www.declude.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hirthe, Alexander
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:45 AM
To:
From So Cal it is not responding.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Che Vilnonis
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:24 AM
To: Declude Email List
Subject:
Title: Message
Andy,
Just curious for the sake of Declude and finding the problem for us so
that I can migrate comfortably as well...
It appears that whatever "content" filter and your DUL combo filter
your system is using wasn't tagged or weighted in your message
headers. I assume then that
Hi,
I just was contacted by Declude and provided various config files.
Apparently my support@ email from last night was not received, possibly
related to the server problems they are having today. So, if you have been
sending your problems to support and have not heard back, you may need to
We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing, support emails
and forum responses, we understand that there is some confusion over Version
2.x actions with regard to per-user setting code changes. We are analyzing
and evaluating various options and will soon release procedures to
Title: Message
Thanks, Darrell. This at least sets me on the
right path. I don't believe "Whitelist AUTH" is something we use because
we're running IMail 7.15, which, I believe, doesn't support that option.
However, there must be other,similar causes for being skipped.
So, does anyone know
On 3 Mar 2005 at 15:06, David Franco-Rocha wrote:
Hi David,
I am having problem with the DELETE action as well; have sent 2
support requests - would this issue be related to what you describe
below as well?
Thanks
-Nick Hayer
We wish to let everyone know that through our own testing,
Nick,
Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected all
recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user triggered
the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone.
A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user
level: If
Don't know if this contributes anything, but I have noted one thing. At LOW
logging in 2.0.5 for a message weighing more than the delete threshold,
the dec.log shows L1 Message OK indicating it was ok for delivery, but
will still be deleted. This is confirmed by looking at the sys.txt
On 3 Mar 2005 at 16:18, David Franco-Rocha wrote:
Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority and affected
all recipients of a message. Even with per-user settings, if one user
triggered the DELETE action, the email was deleted for everyone.
Oh.
I do not use ROUTETO anywhere so at
Hi,
Thanks for the explanation to Nick - that makes sense and seems to fit my
issue.
I generally agree that the new function is desirable. Now we just need to
figure out how to implement it robustly.
E.g., when Declude modifies the envelope to the new route-to address, it
may have to remember
Would it be possible to change the logging to reflect the final action for
each user. This would make since and make it easier to know the final
disposition of the email.
We use a catchall account on Imail and a message that should have been
delete the final disposition showed
Last action =
Kevin,
When was the last time someone granted you a request simply because you
asked? :-)
We are currently making changes to the log whereby the debug mode will show
all actions for all users, so that it will be much easier to see exactly
what happened to any particular email.
David
-
On 3 Mar 2005 at 16:57, David Franco-Rocha wrote:
Excellent David. Good idea Kevin..
This will help us all -
Thanks
-Nick
Kevin,
When was the last time someone granted you a request simply because
you asked? :-)
We are currently making changes to the log whereby the debug mode will
lol , its been a while. I would suggest also putting it in log level high,
due to most log analyzers do not use the debug mode. I think most of the
issues right now are that most admins are looking at log level high and that
the information on last action is missleading.
Kevin Bilbee
This is a weird thing that I've noticed since I upgraded to version 2:
I use SpamReview to scan my HOLD file contents. I'm sure I'm not alone, and
I'm also sure that I've been using SpamReview in exactly the same way on
exactly the same machine for years. At least two. The only variable in the
I seem to remember something about this in the archives, but haven't been
able to track it down.
When I use the outgoing tests, legitimate mail from my own server gets
blocked largely because they fail MAILFROM.
X-RBL-Warning: MAILFROM: Domain dfn.com has no MX or A records [0001].
DNSreport
David Franco-Rocha wrote:
I expect to re-route email that fails WEIGHT10 but to simply delete
email when it fails the higher weight because the probability of spam
there is much higher and I do not want to waste my time checking it.
The problem is that the WEIGHT10 ROUTETO action removes me as
At 04:40 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, Andy Schmidt wrote:
I generally agree that the new function is desirable. Now we just need to
figure out how to implement it robustly.
E.g., when Declude modifies the envelope to the new route-to address, it
may have to remember that new recipient so that it can
Hi,
Check if you defined any DNS servers for Declude. If not, see which ones are
defines in the Imail settings.
Query THOSE DNS servers to see if they have MX/A records. Sometimes people
have an internal DNS server for the AD domain that doesn't have the public
records.
If that doesn't help -
No copyall account here.
-Original Message-
From: Ncl Admin
The problem is the COPYALL account as it will always be HELD rather than
have SPAM deleted as it always fails enough HOLD actions prior to DELETE
weight.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
The copy all account is added before the message is passed ot declude so
declude should not know the difference.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ncl Admin
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:34 PM
To:
35 matches
Mail list logo
