I see the same (with a very small domain and very light usage). The mail
server is nowhere near the strongest, but is sometmies stressed with 1.70
(and was the same with 1.69b) but not 1.65.
My recommendation for those that are experiencing this is to try adding a
line DECODE OFF to the
I keep getting mail that slipps through that IMO shouldn't be that
hard to catch really... They use a variant of the html comments but
the way they do it it don't get detected as a mail with to many html
comments.
Below is a snippet of example text inside the html formated e-mail :
Mail from these domains..
Based on what I see .. email coming from email addresses with .biz or .us
have a higher probability of being a spam than .com.
Of course this is a matter of percentage. We don't receive that many emails
with .biz but from what I see majority (if not all) emails with
I think you need to skip attachments or at least make it an option in the
CFG file. I have already discounted the use of BASE64 test because if there
is a text attachment the test will be triggered.
Why do you need full-mime support to skip attachments??
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
Title: Message
We're seeing more and more valid domains using
.biz, .us and .info. I think it's taking a while but they are finally
starting to be adopted.
-David
I posted this on the Declude Virus list and didn't get any response. (Hope
is wasn't a stupid question :-). Anybody here have anything to offer?
Thanks. -David
I just noticed on Declude site that it is compatible for use on a RAM
drive.
Haven't used one of these since DOS but trying to squeeze
IMO, RAM drives are best for page files and databases.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, June 04,
Windows .NET Magazine (which mentioned Declude JunkMail in their April,
2003 Enterprise Spam Filters Buyers Guide) is having a Reader's Choice
vote, where you can let them know what software you think is the best in
its class, and even which offer the best support.
If you think that the
Don't get scared the from the very long list, you don't have to vote on
everything.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Vote for Declude!
Yeah, declude is not very much HDD IO intensive, CPU power is the key.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude on RAM
This is an entry from today's dec.log file. There are others like it.
06/04/2003 12:09:23 Q27c20609028ae1d0 Msg failed OSSRC (This E-mail came
from 207.44.129.132, a potential spam source listed in OSSRC.).
Action=SUBJECT.
Yet when I run the IP address in www.dnsstuff.com 's Spam Database
This is an entry from today's dec.log file. There are others like it.
06/04/2003 12:09:23 Q27c20609028ae1d0 Msg failed OSSRC (This E-mail came
from 207.44.129.132, a potential spam source listed in OSSRC.).
Action=SUBJECT.
Yet when I run the IP address in www.dnsstuff.com 's Spam Database
Charles:
They need to not be greedy matches or better yet support a very small set
of rules, an overly simplified
engine could allow for word boundries and whitespace with optional letters
and make word and phrase
filters much more powerful.
I agree, regular expressions are somewhat more powerful
It probably just recently dropped out of the OSSRC database and possibly
your DNS that JunkMail is using still has the old entry cached.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Todd Praski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:40 AM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail]
Kami,
I'm running ten IP4r tests, referred to in my original email as an external DB
query. There seems to be a descrepency between this as a cause and Scott's answer:
the Declude process should not show high CPU usage in this case.
Declude uses the Sleep() command, which gives up
Scott,
The servers in question are not [yet] running Declude Virus so what happened should be
a purely Declude JunkMail question. With as lean as Declude is, looks like the only
way to test this is in the moment. During yesterdays moment, it was tuff to sit by
turning off one test at a time,
Hi,
Would this cause BADHEADERS failure for bogus Message ID?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (real IP changed to protect the
guilty)
I assume it's the IP address that's bogus?
Thanks
David
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the
Would this cause BADHEADERS failure for bogus Message ID?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (real IP changed to protect the
guilty)
I assume it's the IP address that's bogus?
Yes, it would. That's not a valid Message-ID: header.
Specifically, the RFCs require that if an IP address is used, it be in
I truly wish I could explain it..
May be I am dreaming.. But what I see is Declude does not get to 100% CPU
since we moved it to IMail to do IP4r.
This morning for example I saw about 10 or so Declude processes.. One at
19%.. A lot at 0% and then jumping to 10% and going away some hit 100% for 1
I have noticed that using the v1.65 I never see Declude use more the 45%
CPU.
Using 1.70 Beta I see Declude Max the CPU's 100%
Has anyone else seen the same.
Fred
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:36
Kami,
Is your DNS that IMAIL/Declude uses local to you? Or are you using an
upstream DNS? That many IPV4 tests may warrant this. We noticed a large
performance boost by using a DNS on the local LAN.
Just a thought
- Original Message -
From: Kami Razvan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
I played with a content body test for .biz/ and had FPs in no time. You can play with
a low weight test with these, but their use will only increase with time. I treat
them the same as .net/.org/.com, one [painfully slow] iteration at a time.
Dan
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 6:19, Kami Razvan
Thats interesting, I upgraded both of the problem servers to 1.70 two days (about 36
hours) before this hit. I'm going to see if I can switch back to 1.69iX to see if
there is a difference.
Dan
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 14:50, Frederick Samarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have noticed that
Hi;
Our DNS is local. Same IP range and 2 racks above the mail server.
We are also using IMail 8 with the cache DNS option- if that makes a
difference with our configuration it is hard to say.
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
I'm not exactly sure how the JunkMail engine works,
so I apologize in advance if this is a rookie question.
Although JunkMail does a great job of catching English-based
junk emails I still get very basic Spanish and Korean (I think)
spam emails. So, does JunkMail catch non-English junk mail?
Any
I'm not exactly sure how the JunkMail engine works,
so I apologize in advance if this is a rookie question.
Although JunkMail does a great job of catching English-based
junk emails I still get very basic Spanish and Korean (I think)
spam emails. So, does JunkMail catch non-English junk mail?
Any
26 matches
Mail list logo
