Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Hmmm? Why not? If it is a legal license (i.e. no restrictions on licensing transfer from the manufacturer), then this generally just voids any warrantees or support contracts. If the software works and you can support it yourself then again, why not? The same applies to hardware. We've purchased quite a bit of used servers and network hardware, all same models for interchangeability, andhave an inventory of spare equipment/parts for emergencies, etc. We know the equipment well so support is not needed. That has been significantly cheaper for us than purchasing new equipment for equivalent performance. Remember, support contracts are effectively an insurance policy. If you're risk is negligible (due to expertise, redundancy, spares, etc.), then grey market can work just fine. For server hardware and some network hardware, BIOS and driver updates are generally freely available. For the OS, patches and updates are also available. There's nothing unprofessional about managing your risk equivalently/differently. Not addressing and managing your risk in accordance with your TOS... that would be unprofessional. Darin. - Original Message - From: Robert E. Spivack To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:35 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License A professional business does not use grey market licenses. Yes, you should switch to Linux so you can get what you pay for and not whine about it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:34 PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Robert,I think that did a good amount of research and I do in fact have my facts straight. It appears rather that you just simply didn't read my message fully.At this moment, SPLA isn't a good deal for me, though I recognize that in some situations it can be.I like to buy full retail versions of Windows in the gray market of eBay, and when you compare gray market prices to SPLA, the gray market compares much more favorably when you are buying for yourself. I also have been basing all of my servers on dual processor systems as a way to maximize the value of the software running on them, and the terms for dual-processor licenses under SPLA is not competitive whatsoever for servers. In my original reply, I linked to a pricing sheet that is freely available from the public website of one of Microsoft's two main suppliers of SPLA licenses, so I am in fact aware of the prices.As I said before, this is something like the third iteration of a pay-as-you-go licensing scheme by Microsoft in just 5 years. In fact, up until last year you also had to be a MCP and join the Microsoft Partner Program at $1,500/year. For a small hosting provider, adding that cost overhead and time to one or a few licenses makes it cost prohibitive. While they did change this, they only did so recently, and parts of their site are still out of date with the changes. The frequency of changes and their admission on their own site that they screwed up badly in the past by having confusing terms and uncompetitive pricing doesn't make me feel at ease with this. I also don't like grossly uncompetitive markets such as limited availability and a requirement for membership in three different Microsoft programs. By limiting access to primarily two resellers of SPLA licenses, they have also created an anti-competitive market. I also don't work for Microsoft, and I don't wish to be reporting back to them or their partners on a monthly basis for the type of operations that I currently have.Microsoft didn't create SPLA to lose money. Part of this was due to competitive pressures from the low overhead of a rapid Linux build-out in bulk hosting, but another part of it was clearly to establish a method of charging based on the success of their customers (per-processor licensing) instead of being based on the software's capabilities itself, and to force more rapid adoption of their latest technologies by removing the asset of purchased software and lowering the overhead to upgrading. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows 2000 still works great as a Web server 6 years after it's release. If Microsoft wanted to stay competitive in all senses, they would have made SPLA completely optional as far as their EULA goes, but they purposefully change it. This change was anti-consumer. I don't like anti-consumer changes.I'm considering SPLA for possibly doing some managed server co-location because I recognize the high upfront costs and competitive pressures where some expect their colo to provide such things in one package. I agree that SPLA makes perfect sense for single processor servers leased in bulk to customers. For my own servers however, I already own licenses for everything and I would definitely be paying substantially more with SPLA over the
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
The MS DNS servers, are they Windows Server 2003? If so, have you researched the DNS issue and made the needed registry change on them? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Baranowski Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:49 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure We are currently testing SM3 and Delude 4 for our migration and seeing the same thing. When I last checked Declude was missing SPAMCOP 5 out 6 times. We use MS DNS and the two servers are on the same GB LAN. Both SM and Declude are using the same DNS server. We also have gone through the same config changes that Gary did too. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T (Lists) Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:38 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0. TIA, Gary --- 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 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 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 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] ip4r failure
How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0. TIA, Gary --- 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] ip4r failure
Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0. TIA, Gary --- 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 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] ip4r failure
Same here. It works very well for us. -d - Original Message - From: John T (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! --- 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] ip4r failure
That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why
does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same
message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few
seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed?
Gary
Original Message
From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS
server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail
server itself. Speeds up resolution.
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider
has given me.
I have no control over or way to access the DNS server.
Gary
Original Message
From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
What is the OS of the DNS server being used?
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my
installation
of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It
seems
that
irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly
running the
same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude
both
testing
SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a
spam
will
get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For
example,
following is from the header of a recent message:
X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail
detected.
X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX:
X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found.
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200]
X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml
X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4
(http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm)
for spam.
X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006
X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO
X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination
X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP
I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they
were able to
come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg,
which
changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also
produced
no effect.
Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close
relationship,
Declude
can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since
Declude
is supposed
to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail.
Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I
will
hear is that
this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0.
TIA,
Gary
---
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] ip4r failure
Smartermail probably is being more patient and has a longer DNS timing out period than declude. You should really run a cache only DNS directly on your mail server. It will speed your deliver time of your emails and catch more spam for you. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:56 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed? Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0. TIA, Gary --- 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 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] ip4r failure
I quite possibly is the issue. It has to do with response times. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:56 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed? Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0. TIA, Gary --- 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 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] ip4r failure
From a past problem I worked on we had very poor results with DNS blacklists on a mail server that I maintained. The customer I was working for was using a providers DNS server that was slow. We were able to determine that the first query always (well 99% of the time) timed out while a subsequent follow-up query was always resolved the record with no issue. We did some testing with the provider and determined that what was happening was that the providers dns servers were really busy and just plainly could not serve the queries fast enough. The second query was served before the timeout since it was cached. Installing a caching server on the mail server fixed the issue. Darrell --- Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude, Imail, mxGuard, and ORF. IMail/Declude Overflow Queue Monitoring, SURBL/URI integration, MRTG Integration, and Log Parsers. Gary Steiner writes: That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed? Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0. TIA, Gary --- 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 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.
[Declude.JunkMail] email from kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just got an e-mail asking me to update my info with a form attached: Dear Customer, We are currently in the process of updating our records here at Declude. We are aware that you have purchased product from us in the past and would greatly appreciate your response in regards to thecurrent status of your software. Please use the attached document to advise if you are actively using the product and/or if you are in needof a product upgrade and/or maintenance renewal. We greatly appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to serving you as our customer. Best Regards, Kelley O'Connell Declude - Internet Security Software I KNOW I am paranoid - but it sounded like one of those scam e-mails. Additionaly, Kelly if you are listening, always create a list or BCC everyone 30-40 people in the TO: field Thanks - Marc --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- 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] ip4r failure
Gary, Let me confuse things a bit more here. I would recommend not using Windows DNS as your caching server if you are using Windows 2003. It enables something called EDNS0 by default and some servers won't resolve lookups and this will cause some resolution based tests to not operate and some E-mail to bounce as undeliverable. You can disable ENDS0 using the directions from Microsoft's site, however unfortunately there is a bug that causes EDNS0 to re-enable itself on every reboot of your server and I have not figured out how to stop that from happening except to reapply the workaround after every reboot. You would be best served by purchasing Simple DNS (http://www.simpledns.com/) which doesn't have this issue, or having a Linux based DNS server of your own. No matter what, it is a bad idea to use someone else's DNS server for RBL lookups. Matt Gary Steiner wrote: That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed? Gary Original Message From: "John T \(Lists\)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: "John T \(Lists\)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add "WINSOCKCLEANUP ON" to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
Matt, I think I know what that bug is but I am on a live meeting right now and I will look it up later. I think it has to do with the boot.ini file. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:49 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Gary, Let me confuse things a bit more here. I would recommend not using Windows DNS as your caching server if you are using Windows 2003. It enables something called EDNS0 by default and some servers won't resolve lookups and this will cause some resolution based tests to not operate and some E-mail to bounce as undeliverable. You can disable ENDS0 using the directions from Microsoft's site, however unfortunately there is a bug that causes EDNS0 to re-enable itself on every reboot of your server and I have not figured out how to stop that from happening except to reapply the workaround after every reboot. You would be best served by purchasing Simple DNS (http://www.simpledns.com/) which doesn't have this issue, or having a Linux based DNS server of your own. No matter what, it is a bad idea to use someone else's DNS server for RBL lookups. Matt Gary Steiner wrote: That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed?Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failureAlthough others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNSserver in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imailserver itself. Speeds up resolution.John TeServices For YouSeek, and ye shall find! -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary SteinerSent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failureHow do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server.Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failureWhat is the OS of the DNS server being used?John TeServices For YouSeek, and ye shall find! -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary SteinerSent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failureI've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message:X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX:X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found.X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200]X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.emlX-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam.X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELOX-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destinationX-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOPI went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail.Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0.TIA,Gary ---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. Tounsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], andtype unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be foundat http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
Matt, Is this true even if you manually set the reg key versus doing it with dnscmd? Darrell Matt writes: Gary, Let me confuse things a bit more here. I would recommend not using Windows DNS as your caching server if you are using Windows 2003. It enables something called EDNS0 by default and some servers won't resolve lookups and this will cause some resolution based tests to not operate and some E-mail to bounce as undeliverable. You can disable ENDS0 using the directions from Microsoft's site, however unfortunately there is a bug that causes EDNS0 to re-enable itself on every reboot of your server and I have not figured out how to stop that from happening except to reapply the workaround after every reboot. You would be best served by purchasing Simple DNS (http://www.simpledns.com/) which doesn't have this issue, or having a Linux based DNS server of your own. No matter what, it is a bad idea to use someone else's DNS server for RBL lookups. Matt Gary Steiner wrote: That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed? Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude is supposed to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I will hear is that this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0. TIA, Gary --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
enableednsprobes is set to 0 in my registries. I believe that the dnscmd /config /enableednsprobes 0 command is what sets this. For some reason though, when I reboot any of my servers, it stops resolving hosts that have issues with ENDS0 packets until I run that command again and restart the service. The registry setting does not change. I have not tested whether just simply restarting the DNS service will cause this to be picked up, or whether it causes it to be dropped. I only verified that this was the case on a reboot...any reboot. All three of my servers with Windows DNS running experience the same issues. Note that I don't run AD on any of these boxes. Matt Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Matt, Is this true even if you manually set the reg key versus doing it with dnscmd? Darrell Matt writes: Gary, Let me confuse things a bit more here. I would recommend not using Windows DNS as your caching server if you are using Windows 2003. It enables something called EDNS0 by default and some servers won't resolve lookups and this will cause some resolution based tests to not operate and some E-mail to bounce as undeliverable. You can disable ENDS0 using the directions from Microsoft's site, however unfortunately there is a bug that causes EDNS0 to re-enable itself on every reboot of your server and I have not figured out how to stop that from happening except to reapply the workaround after every reboot. You would be best served by purchasing Simple DNS (http://www.simpledns.com/) which doesn't have this issue, or having a Linux based DNS server of your own. No matter what, it is a bad idea to use someone else's DNS server for RBL lookups. Matt Gary Steiner wrote: That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed? Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
I guess I am missing what the local DNS really has to do with the ip4r
tests.
The way I understand the ip4r filter is that Declude does a DSN lookup at
lets say SPAMCOP at bl.spamcop.net for a response. It is waiting for a
response from SPAMCOP not the configured local DNS server. If the SPAMCOP
keeps changing their ip address or it is doing a round robin then yes I
could see how it could miss one or two but once it is cached locally it
should be ok for a while.
At that point SM may be waiting longer then Declude for a response which
would be why it is failing Declude.
If am wrong please correct me.
Thanks
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:56 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why
does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same
message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few
seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed?
Gary
Original Message
From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only
DNS
server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail
server itself. Speeds up resolution.
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider
has given me.
I have no control over or way to access the DNS server.
Gary
Original Message
From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
What is the OS of the DNS server being used?
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure
I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and
my
installation
of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It
seems
that
irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail
redundantly
running the
same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and
Declude
both
testing
SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a
spam
will
get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For
example,
following is from the header of a recent message:
X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate
E-mail
detected.
X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX:
X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found.
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200]
X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml
X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4
(http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm)
for spam.
X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006
X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO
X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination
X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP
I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best
they
were able to
come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg,
which
changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also
produced
no effect.
Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close
relationship,
Declude
can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since
Declude
is supposed
to be using the DNS server information as set within SmarterMail.
Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'm sure the next thing I
will
hear is that
this problem will go away if I upgrade to SM 3.0 and Declude 4.0.
TIA,
Gary
---
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 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] ip4r failure
No, Declude nor the OS nor your workstation nor etc go out to the internet to fetch the information. They use the DNS server that they are configured for. That DNS server is responsible for responding to the requesting app with the information or a time out or does not exist. That DNS server is what does the searching on the Internet according to protocol. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Baranowski Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:53 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I guess I am missing what the local DNS really has to do with the ip4r tests. The way I understand the ip4r filter is that Declude does a DSN lookup at lets say SPAMCOP at bl.spamcop.net for a response. It is waiting for a response from SPAMCOP not the configured local DNS server. If the SPAMCOP keeps changing their ip address or it is doing a round robin then yes I could see how it could miss one or two but once it is cached locally it should be ok for a while. At that point SM may be waiting longer then Declude for a response which would be why it is failing Declude. If am wrong please correct me. Thanks Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:56 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure That may speed up resolution, but that's not my issue. The question is why does SmarterMail catch the spam using the same ip4r tests? It is the same message, and the tests are being perfomed on the same eml file within a few seconds of each other. Why does Declude fail and SM succeed? Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 1:22 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure Although others opinions may vary, you are better off using a cache only DNS server in-house for you mail server resolution. I do this on the Imail server itself. Speeds up resolution. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure How do I find that out? It is just an address that my hosting provider has given me. I have no control over or way to access the DNS server. Gary Original Message From: John T \(Lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:40 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure What is the OS of the DNS server being used? John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Steiner Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:27 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] ip4r failure I've been having this problem with Declude going back to August and my installation of 2.0.6. I'm currently running 3.0.6.4 with SmarterMail 2.6. It seems that irregularly Declude's ip4r tests time out, but SmarterMail redundantly running the same tests has no trouble picking up the spam. I have SM and Declude both testing SPAMCOP, DSBL, CBL, Spamhaus SBL, and Basura. What will happen is a spam will get through Declude, but get caught by SM using the same tests. For example, following is from the header of a recent message: X-RBL-Warning: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-RBL-Warning: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Warning: DYNHELO: Dynamic HELO found. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [69.205.200.200] X-Declude-Spoolname: 45172055.eml X-Declude-Note: Scanned by Declude 3.0.6.4 (http://www.declude.com/x-note.htm) for spam. X-Declude-Scan: Score [7] at 21:24:19 on 14 Mar 2006 X-Declude-Tests: NOLEGITCONTENT, IPNOTINMX, DYNHELO X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES-destination X-SmarterMail-Spam: BAYESIAN FILTERING, CBL, SPAMCOP I went over this several times with Declude support, and the best they were able to come up with is for me to add WINSOCKCLEANUP ON to my declude.cfg, which changed nothing. Using the DNS statement in the global.cfg also produced no effect. Maybe now that Declude and SmarterTools have such a close relationship, Declude can ask SmarterTools how their ip4r tests work. Especially since Declude
