RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted

[Andy Schmidt]

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 assigning of weights.  Sniffer and INV-URIBL both are part of the "Content" filter.  This avoids that the same spammy "URL" found by both tests will add double weight.   I think the explanation is, that the HEADER only reports "non-zero" weights.   b) The same is true for NJABLDYNA. I have a filter for Dynamic/Dialup blacklists.  Again, the idea is to find "dynamic" IP addresses in multiple lists - but if found (in one or more) to only assign ONE weight.   So, I wouldn't get hung up too much on the fact that the HEADER and the LOG list of failed tests doesn't line up.  It's just that some zero-weight tests are not reported.   c) The underlying problem appears to simply be the ROUTETO outweighing the DELETE action.  In every case that I've seen so far it was an email that included [EMAIL PROTECTED] as one of the recipients (which triggers the ROUTETO Postmaster... action).    Since there WAS a change in the logic in 2.0 regarding the handling of recipients, it's very feasibly the problem.   d) I have seen no indication whatsoever, that the bypass whitelisting is not working. In all cases where the POSTMASTER filter with ROUTETO is NOT included, the whitelisting (or rather, the bypass of it) works as intended.   In every case I have looked at where Whitelisting IS active, it was reported correctly in the log and the headers.    e) Finally, I treat the misreporting of the BYPASS WHITELIST  >= 6 Recipients as a "cosmetic" error.  Apparently, that line should read "> 6 Recipients".  (I was going to see how it is documented - if at all - but the Declude web site is down). Best Regards Andy Schmidt H&M 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 Matt Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:32 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Version 2.x, High-Weight Junkmail Not Deleted Andy Schmidt wrote: The message is NOT whitelisted (see log and header), so the 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 clear inconsistencies between the log, the headers and your inbox.  There's that one bypass whitelisting line that is wrong, and then 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, and of course all entries say DELETE but you still got a copy of the message.  It appears as if it was being whitelisted in spite of the logs and the headers, either that or the DELETE action was just simply being ignored.  I thought it might help to point out what I though was suggestive of the underlying problem.  Kevin's post hints at what might be similar or even related incorrect behavior. Once again, I have NO per-user configuration! I fully understood that after you stated it the first time.  I think you misread what I wrote.  There's no reason to rehash that however. Matt -- ===================================================== MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =====================================================

<<attachment: HMSoftSmall.jpg>>