|
Hi
Richard:
I
don't know what other measures you have taken. Pardon me, if my suggestions are
repetitive:
a) It
looks as if your email is routed through:
Received: by
spamwall.apid.com (Postfix, from userid 777)
id 68F9B46B76; Sat, 26 Feb
2005 10:35:22 -0600 (CST)
before
it even gets to Imail/Declude.
b) You
need to check the log for each component to see where it is
received.
-
check the Declude Virus AND Spam logs to see if you can identify the incoming
mail
-
check the Imail log to see if the mail ever even MADE it as far as your Imail
server - if not...
-
check whatever logs Postfix may offer to see if it received the message - and
why it blocked it.
If you
can't identify the message, then send the pictures to some other public
email system (or to my Postmaster at Argos.net). Once we inspect the
headers for the sending IP, HELO string, sending domain, MAIL FROM, etc, it will
be easier to look for just the right log entry.
Even
better - if the EZshare software let's you send with a CC or BCC - then send it
to both YOUR email address and my Postmaster at Argos.net. This way, we
can narrow down the exact time that the delivery was attempted (by looking at
the headers in the email at that I receive).
Depending on how they send the images in "email" mode, e.g., what
attachments, if any, how they compose the MIME stream etc, it is entirely
possible that one of your various mail server applications is blocking it based
on formatting.
Best
Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20
(Business)
Fax: +1 201 934-9206
I send these pictures to a whitelisted email
address..No Declude Filtering....and they still won't come thru if I send them
"Best for Email"
From the headers it looks like it goes to a Kodak
server then back to me...but it should still come thru..
If I copy the picture into outlook express and
send it...it comes thru..if I send the picture thru EZ Share program it won't
come thru unless I send it as is....but if you hit the button "Best for email"
then it won't show up..
X-EMS: wait 10s
X-EMS: wait 20s
X-EMS: wait
30s
X-EMS: wait 40s
X-EMS: wait 50s
X-EMS: wait 60s
X-EMS: wait
70s
X-EMS: wait 80s
X-EMS: wait 90s
X-EMS: wait 100s
X-EMS: wait
110s
X-EMS: wait 120s
X-EMS: wait 130s
X-EMS: wait 140s
X-EMS:
wait 150s
X-EMS: wait 160s
X-EMS: wait 170s
X-EMS: wait
180s
X-EMS: wait 190s
X-EMS: wait 200s
X-EMS: wait 210s
X-EMS:
wait 220s
X-EMS: wait 230s
X-EMS: wait 240s
X-EMS: wait
250s
X-EMS: wait 260s
X-EMS: wait 270s
X-EMS: wait 280s
X-EMS:
wait 290s
X-EMS: wait 300s
X-EMS: wait 310s
X-EMS: wait
320s
X-EMS: wait 330s
X-EMS: wait 340s
X-EMS: wait 350s
Received:
from spamwall.apid.com [63.238.52.89] by ethixs.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-7.11) id A39E635A03CE; Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:28:14 -0500
Received:
by spamwall.apid.com (Postfix, from userid 777)
id 68F9B46B76; Sat,
26 Feb 2005 10:35:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from
snj-us-pcwp-708.us.kodak.com (snj-us-pcwp-708-att.kodak.com
[63.240.114.217])
by spamwall.apid.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
CA3CF46B22;
Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:35:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from
picturecd.kodak.com (host-166.ethixs.com [65.240.164.166] (may be
forged))
by snj-us-pcwp-708.us.kodak.com (8.11.7p2/8.11.7) with SMTP
id j1QGA7618504;
Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:10:08 GMT
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Test 1 Original
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:10:25 -0600
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=1_boundary
X-Filtered-By:
SublimeMail (http://sublimemail.com)
X-Declude-Sender:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[63.240.114.217]
X-Declude-Spoolname: Da39e635a03ce260e.SMD
X-Note:
Total Spam Weight Of This Email Is 0.
X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status:
U
X-UIDL: 372900424
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.0.300
[266.5.0]
Richard Farris
Ethixs Online
1.270.247.5555
Office
1.800.548.3877 Tech Support
"Crossroads to a Cleaner
Internet"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:54
AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Kodak
EZ Share
I
had the same trouble with out shops sending pics through the EZ Share
software. I added them to our whitelist and they started coming
through just fine.
Rodney Bertsch
IT Coordinator
Kirk NationaLease
Co.
I have Kodak EZ Share that allows you to take
pictures with your digital camera and email them out...when I email them
to myself from another computer I never get them unless I tell it to
send as is..if I choose "Best for email" I wont get them. Other customers
are telling me they are not getting pictures either...
I am trying to figure out why..I have taken
out all my Imail rules and all .zip files from the virus config...and by
the way...it won't even send them to an account that I have
whitelisted..
Does anyone know where I could look to find
out why I am not getting them..they go to my yahoo.com account just
fine..and I have tried to decipher the log files with no
luck.....
Could it be the virus program is deleting
them? I use FPROT..
I am sure there are more customers that are
not getting pictures that I have not heard from yet..
Richard Farris
Ethixs Online
1.270.247.5555
Office
1.800.548.3877 Tech Support
"Crossroads to a Cleaner
Internet"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:36
PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Log
Corruption
It's the same log format except that all
the messages for a specific email are grouped together. Well most of the
time they are grouped together.
It does make eyeball parsing of the log
easier.
I load the logs into a database daily. With
the 1.8x versions, I'll need to code around a new type of log corruption
every one to two months.
For the 3 days I was running 2.x, I had to
code around 4 new corruption issues.
Visually there is also more
corruption.
Odd things is that I never get log
corruption in message sniffer. So somebody is writing out logs that
don't get corrupt.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005
3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
Log Corruption
There has always been corruption of the logs.
What seems to have changed here is that there is a new log format and
the programmed exceptions in DLanalyzer are no longer able to handle
the types of corruption as seamlessly as in the past.
I haven't
seen the new log format, but I would imagine that if they built it in
a column format and kept it to a single line, similar to Web logging
standards, it should be even easier to parse the data and correct for
issues. If they didn't keep to consistent columns, then this
could be just as big of an issue to parse as before and a lot of the
exception rules would have to be rewritten for the new
format.
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
Yesterday's report on my declude logfile showed
=...................................1........0.01%
02/28/2005..........................1........0.01%
FF156FB0094D05A.....................1........0.01%
I005................................1........0.01%
QCEA370970074D08A...................1........0.01%
SET.................................1........0.01%
SNIFFQCE053ABD0086D062..............1........0.01%
This is from
Total Messages Processed: 12,316
And loglevel set to HIGH and the size of the file is 122 MB
I am running 2.0.5
Goran Jovanovic
The LAN Shoppe
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 2:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Log Corruption
I had the opposite experience. Back at, oh, 1.7x I ran on LOGLEVEL
HIGH, and had lots of log corruption. I had to drop down to MID. The
increase in spam volume made it such that at MID, I had lots of log
corruption again.
With 2.x and the lines being written in a batch, I noticed an
immediate
drop in my disk usage and a huge drop in corrupted lines.
Andrew 8)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Log Corruption
Hi,
Yesterday was actually a good day (here a snippet):
TEST # FAILED Percentage
18:51:58................1........0.01%
SNIF02/28/2005..........1........0.01%
SPA02/28/2005...........1........0.01%
WEIG02/28/2005..........1........0.01%
Sure, I used to get reports that were "clean", but considering it only
happens a "few" times a day, I don't consider it a major issue and I
can
live with it.
Also I used to run in MID log level, but after 1.76 (or so), they
removed the test summary line form MID level, and I needed to switch
to
HIGH log level. It's entirely possible that the log corruption is not
really specific to 2.0x - but rather a secondary result because they
forded me to deal with tremendously large log files (vs. the old MID
log
files).
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/
---
[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.
--
=====================================================
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=====================================================
|
