RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Right, so they have to make it so that we can account for this which is what they didn't do when they made the change in 2.0 as we do know what the account name is, however, if you don't have pro version that is even a bigger issue. Not a problem for me, but perhaps others. --- Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original Message -- From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:48:31 -0800 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: Declude.JunkMail@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 to the new route-to address, it may have to remember that new recipient so that it can reference it in case it later encounters a DELETE action. Or, to reverse that logic, let the ROUTETO remember the new recipient - but don't actually update the envelope until Spam processing for that user is complete. 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. And as the COPYALL isn't a real part of the envelope it most likely causes more problems since it is added somewhere in IMAIL as a seperate addressee. [This E-mail scanned for viruses by F-Prot] --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. [This E-mail scanned for viruses by F-Prot] [This E-mail scanned for viruses by F-Prot] --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. Wow, that is REALLY NOT how this should be working. The clear and obvious mistake was to let the ROUTETO action change the recipient for which the actions were being applied. If you don't see the err in this, please chime up because I could write a book about how this is bad and will have many unintended consequences. 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. 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 unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 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" might be resolved. No, this isn't an appropriate solution. The change makes ROUTETO the final action, and now it has precedence over DELETE. If you have a filter called BLACKLIST-NO-MATTER-WHAT set to DELETE, and a message fails that test plus it fails something that has a ROUTETO action, it will not be deleted. This change removes our ability to override ROUTETO in special circumstances. While most issues will be fixed by preventing the overlapping of weight ranges and the actions, that only applies to weight based things, and this ties our hands when it comes to taking actions regardless of weight. That's completely unacceptable, and I also assume that it was unintentional; the result of an oversight. If DELETE is to be changed in the way that they did, they must make it be able to target a recipient that has already been tagged with ROUTETO. It makes no sense to use the changed ROUTETO address for determining further actions. This will also be very difficult to troubleshoot in some circumstances and also difficult to keep track of. Declude needs to make sure that the actions are not applied based on the ROUTETO address' config, but instead the original recipient's config. If they did that, all problems would be solved, including the overlapping weight range issue that seemingly has stung so many here. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:17 AMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.xJohn 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 isn't an appropriate solution. The change makes ROUTETO the final action, and now it has precedence over DELETE. If you have a filter called BLACKLIST-NO-MATTER-WHAT set to DELETE, and a message fails that test plus it fails something that has a ROUTETO action, it will not be deleted. This change removes our ability to override ROUTETO in special circumstances. While most issues will be fixed by preventing the overlapping of weight ranges and the actions, that only applies to weight based things, and this ties our hands when it comes to taking actions regardless of weight. That's completely unacceptable, and I also assume that it was unintentional; the result of an oversight.If DELETE is to be changed in the way that they did, they must make it be able to target a recipient that has already been tagged with ROUTETO. It makes no sense to use the changed ROUTETO address for determining further actions. This will also be very difficult to troubleshoot in some circumstances and also difficult to keep track of.Declude needs to make sure that the actions are not applied based on the ROUTETO address' config, but instead the original recipient's config. If they did that, all problems would be solved, including the overlapping weight range issue that seemingly has stung so many here.Matt-- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 "downward" compatible. It may help to check your configurations to whether you can company specific (= per domain) actions. If you areusing either of these two features: - \Domain.com\$default$.junkmail- REDIRECT @domain.com then this may explain the (unexpected/temporarily) changed handling of DELETE, HOLD and other actions. Again, I believe this will be corrected. Best RegardsAndy SchmidtHM Systems Software, Inc.600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)Fax: +1 201 934-9206http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:17 PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.xJohn 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 isn't an appropriate solution. The change makes ROUTETO the final action, and now it has precedence over DELETE. If you have a filter called BLACKLIST-NO-MATTER-WHAT set to DELETE, and a message fails that test plus it fails something that has a ROUTETO action, it will not be deleted. This change removes our ability to override ROUTETO in special circumstances. While most issues will be fixed by preventing the overlapping of weight ranges and the actions, that only applies to weight based things, and this ties our hands when it comes to taking actions regardless of weight. That's completely unacceptable, and I also assume that it was unintentional; the result of an oversight.If DELETE is to be changed in the way that they did, they must make it be able to target a recipient that has already been tagged with ROUTETO. It makes no sense to use the changed ROUTETO address for determining further actions. This will also be very difficult to troubleshoot in some circumstances and also difficult to keep track of.Declude needs to make sure that the actions are not applied based on the ROUTETO address' config, but instead the original recipient's config. If they did that, all problems would be solved, including the overlapping weight range issue that seemingly has stung so many here.Matt-- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = attachment: HMSoftSmall.jpg
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
Kevin, A per-domain config can also have an effect. This very well might not be the case with your issue, but in this context I believe that I should explain further just in case. If you have a message sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that fails tests that result in both a ROUTETO and DELETE action for example.com, it might not actually get deleted, instead after failing the ROUTETO action, it will use the config for whatever per-domain/per-user config the ROUTETO was pointed at. So if it was ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED], then Declude would pull the config for otherdomain.com or [EMAIL PROTECTED] and only execute actions based on that, or at least that is what I understand. If it didn't fail a DELETE test in otherdomain.com, it would simply be delivered to the ROUTETO address. While most issues that this creates can be worked around, it is unwieldy, excessively complicated, and clearly leads to unexpected results, especially in a multiple domain environment with per-domain configs, or those with per-user configs. From a high level view, the fix is simple, they just shouldn't use the ROUTETO address's config for determining actions. They should only use the final recipient in IMail, prior to reaching Declude, for determining all actions. If you post more of your circumstance, maybe one of us can come up with an idea as to what is happening. Matt Kevin Bilbee wrote: 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 Matt Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:17 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 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" might be resolved. No, this isn't an appropriate solution. The change makes ROUTETO the final action, and now it has precedence over DELETE. If you have a filter called BLACKLIST-NO-MATTER-WHAT set to DELETE, and a message fails that test plus it fails something that has a ROUTETO action, it will not be deleted. This change removes our ability to override ROUTETO in special circumstances. While most issues will be fixed by preventing the overlapping of weight ranges and the actions, that only applies to weight based things, and this ties our hands when it comes to taking actions regardless of weight. That's completely unacceptable, and I also assume that it was unintentional; the result of an oversight. If DELETE is to be changed in the way that they did, they must make it be able to target a recipient that has already been tagged with ROUTETO. It makes no sense to use the changed ROUTETO address for determining further actions. This will also be very difficult to troubleshoot in some circumstances and also difficult to keep track of. Declude needs to make sure that the actions are not applied based on the ROUTETO address' config, but instead the original recipient's config. If they did that, all problems would be solved, including the overlapping weight range issue that seemingly has stung so many here. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:17 PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.xJohn 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 isn't an appropriate solution. The change makes ROUTETO the final action, and now it has precedence over DELETE. If you have a filter called BLACKLIST-NO-MATTER-WHAT set to DELETE, and a message fails that test plus it fails something that has a ROUTETO action, it will not be deleted. This change removes our ability to override ROUTETO in special circumstances. While most issues will be fixed by preventing the overlapping of weight ranges and the actions, that only applies to weight based things, and this ties our hands when it comes to taking actions regardless of weight. That's completely unacceptable, and I also assume that it was unintentional; the result of an oversight.If DELETE is to be changed in the way that they did, they must make it be able to target a recipient that has already been tagged with ROUTETO. It makes no sense to use the changed ROUTETO address for determining further actions. This will also be very difficult to troubleshoot in some circumstances and also difficult to keep track of.Declude needs to make sure that the actions are not applied based on the ROUTETO address' config, but instead the original recipient's config. If they did that, all problems would be solved, including the overlapping weight range issue that seemingly has stung so many here.Matt-- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 that has been addressed in detail I have no issues. No question it will get resolved now. Time to move on. -Nick --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
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 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, 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 deal with this issue. --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
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 for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE 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 replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: 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 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, 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 deal with this issue. --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 least in my case that is not a cause - Please keep us informed - in the meantime I'm back to 1.82 -Nick --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 that new recipient so that it can reference it in case it later encounters a DELETE action. Or, to reverse that logic, let the ROUTETO remember the new recipient - but don't actually update the envelope until Spam processing for that user is complete. 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:+1 201 934-9206 http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Franco-Rocha Sent: Thursday, 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 for everyone. A change was made in 2.0 to allow for deletions to be made on a per-user level: If there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE 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 replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: 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 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, 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 deal with this issue. --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
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 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 = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -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 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 there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE 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 replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: 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 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, 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 deal with this issue. --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 - 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 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 = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -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 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 there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE 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 replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: 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 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, 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 deal with this issue. --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 show all actions for all users, so that it will be much easier to see exactly what happened to any particular email. David - 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 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 = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -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 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 there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE 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 replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: 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 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, 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 deal with this issue. --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 -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 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 - 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 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 = IGNORE When it should have been deleted. If the message was processed differently for different accounts then I would expect to see Last action = DELETE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last action = IGNORE - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Because in all actuality there were multiple final actions. Kevin Bilbee -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 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 there are three recipients A, B and C, and at least one of the recipients (B, for example) triggers the DELETE action, the envelope is modified and the new recipients are A and C. That seems to be working fine. The problem arises with DELETE which has been preceded by another action that has already modified the recipient. If my per-user cfg indicates that: WEIGHT10 ROUTETO [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEIGHT15 DELETE 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 replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. There are several combinations and scenarios that can occur with multiple recipients and multiple actions, and we are studying and testing this very carefully. There may be other facets of your issue that do not apply here, and I will take a very careful look at it. David - Original Message - From: 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 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, 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 deal with this issue. --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 a recipient and replaces me with [EMAIL PROTECTED]; when the DELETE action is triggered, it tries to delete me as a recipient, but I have already been replaced, so the deletion does not occur. Wow, that is REALLY NOT how this should be working. The clear and obvious mistake was to let the ROUTETO action change the recipient for which the actions were being applied. If you don't see the err in this, please chime up because I could write a book about how this is bad and will have many unintended consequences. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
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 to the new route-to address, it may have to remember that new recipient so that it can reference it in case it later encounters a DELETE action. Or, to reverse that logic, let the ROUTETO remember the new recipient - but don't actually update the envelope until Spam processing for that user is complete. 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. And as the COPYALL isn't a real part of the envelope it most likely causes more problems since it is added somewhere in IMAIL as a seperate addressee. [This E-mail scanned for viruses by F-Prot] --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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 (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2.x
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: Declude.JunkMail@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 to the new route-to address, it may have to remember that new recipient so that it can reference it in case it later encounters a DELETE action. Or, to reverse that logic, let the ROUTETO remember the new recipient - but don't actually update the envelope until Spam processing for that user is complete. 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. And as the COPYALL isn't a real part of the envelope it most likely causes more problems since it is added somewhere in IMAIL as a seperate addressee. [This E-mail scanned for viruses by F-Prot] --- [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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.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 E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
