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: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com; Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
At 04:40 PM 3
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 a
recipient and
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
I have not been following the thread in detail, but if some one that is
having the problem would change to WEIGHTRANGE instead of WEIGHT and ensure
there are no overlappings, I have a feeling the at least part of the
"problem" might be resolved.
No, this
We use
weightrange and do not use per user configurations. Also the messages that were
over our delete weight and not deleted did not contain a routto
action??
Kevin
Bilbee
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
MattSent:
Title: Message
Hi Nick, John, Eric, Fritz, Kevin, Dan,
NCL Admin, et al:
This
change removes our ability to override ROUTETO in special
circumstances.
I recommendyou sit tight just a little longer.
The "new" behavior apparently was not intended and I'm certain, Declude will be
made
] Declude 2.x
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
I have not been following the thread in detail, but if some one that is
having the problem would change to WEIGHTRANGE instead of WEIGHT and ensure
there are no overlappings, I have a feeling the at least part of the
"problem&q
Title: Message
And
also:
If you
have the COPY ALL EMAIL active in Imail.. the DELETE action does does not
work. In our setup, we do not use any ROUTETO in any of our config
files. And you can not setup a per domain/user for that copy all email
account.
-Original
On 4 Mar 2005 at 12:51, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Nick, John, Eric, Fritz, Kevin, Dan, NCL Admin, et al:
I recommendyou sit tight just a little longer.
Done!. I'm chilled. No problem. Really. Honest!
:)
The only thing that slightly ticked me off was lack of communication
about this bug. Now
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
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 Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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
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
, March 03, 2005 04:19 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Franco-Rocha
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:19 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Nick,
Prior to 2.0, the DELETE action had the highest priority
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Would it be possible to change the logging to reflect the final action for
each user. This would make since and make
: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
Franco-Rocha
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:57 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Kevin,
When was the last time someone granted you a request simply because
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
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
@declude.com; Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
