As was stated in an earlier post, this is a technical discussion list which
has no place for posts like this. So please quit your whining and
confrontational comments and try to keep it professional. Otherwise, take
it off list.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Levitsky [EMAIL
I have not noticed an increase this weekend, myself, but maybe others have.
Is it mainly your DNS based tests that are failing or is it pretty much all
tests across the board? If it's your DNS tests that are failing, check to
see if the DNS server that IMail is configured to use is working and
Aha. Secondary DNS that Declude was pointed to (BIND 9.2.2)
had died, and the daemon that watches it to restart it, wasn't. Thanks,
Bill.
At 03:05 AM 07/28/2003, Bill Landry wrote:
I have not noticed an increase this
weekend, myself, but maybe others have.
Is it mainly your DNS based tests that
Starting Friday night, most of the users of the various domains on my
server have been complaining of a massive flood of spam. I would say the
spam traffic I have seen has easily tripled or quadrupled this weekend.
It's unreal. I myself have received over 800 spam emails in the past 24
hours.
Jason,
The mechanism is perhaps there since user-specific ip4r lookups are in
place, but this may be a one-way identifier. The implication is they do
not, imho, based on their site's overview text.
The only way to tell is to individually evaluate email messages, or ask
them directly :(
When I travel, I frequently access my own mail server running Declude
Junkmail outbound using SMTP AUTH ... but I've had a couple of my own
email's get caught. I understand it is a bad thing to WHITELIST your
own domain, but is there a way to prevent myself from being caught.
When I access from
If I recall, this is something Scott said they were working on--it will
certainly be a welcome feature. It sounds like you are spam filtering your
outbound mail? If that's the case, for now you could always create a
subject filter entry (if you are running the Pro version) that applies
enough of
Hi Dave:
What we have done is as Bill suggested- we have several codes that we added
in the Global statement:
WHITELIST SUBJECT xyz
WHITELIST ANYWHEREmorexyz
These codes are a set of words or numbers that we include in the subject.
The benefit is when a client reponds to the
I find it funny that EV1 is a major spam source for you, they are my
lagrest competitor here in Houston (they are Houston based). I know
they use Imail and Declude (they really should monitor these lists,
maybe even try providing some input), and with a reported 300k users,
they should be very
Here is what I am now doing to fight
problems with DNS servers going down.
I have installed DNS on the Imail
server. It has no zones and answers queries only from Imail and Declude. I have
set Imail DNS server to 127.0.0.1. I have then configured 4 forwarders in the
DNS server
I do a ROUTETO with no problems.
At their request I sent them instructions for config'ing Imail 8 and
Declude. So if they get put up and they're wrong its probably my fault
:D
Here's what I sent them:
Here is the Imail 8 mail server configuration info:
I have a filter
test, called FILTER1, with the following line in the filter file that still does
not catch messages full of question marks:
BODY 10 CONTAINS
Here is the
tests-failed line from the headers:
X-Spam-Tests-Failed:
ALLIGATESPAM1, HELOBOGUS, IPNOTINMX, WEIGHT10 [21]
Hey Matt, thanks for the Trustic update and config info, this is very
helpful!
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] New spamcop style RBL..
I do a ROUTETO with no
I have a filter test, called FILTER1, with the following line in the
filter file that still does not catch messages full of question marks:
BODY 10 CONTAINS
Here is the tests-failed line from the headers:
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: ALLIGATESPAM1, HELOBOGUS, IPNOTINMX, WEIGHT10 [21]
The
I have trie drepeatedly to unsubscribe with the instructions below, but
have received no confirmation or process request AND I'm still receiving
messages from this list, something wrong with the unsubscribe feature with
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ??
The problem is that you never
- Original Message -
From: Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] New spamcop style RBL..
2. To send Trustic your (confirmed!) spam (typically only that
which has received very heavy weighting and
I have trie drepeatedly to
unsubscribe with the instructions below, but have received no confirmation or
process request AND I'm still receiving messages from this list, something wrong
with the unsubscribe feature with [EMAIL PROTECTED]??
Thanks
- Original Message -
From:
Scott:
While there is a per domain/per user WHITELISTFILE feature, I do not see a
BLACKLISTFILE feature that works per domain/per user.
Is this something which is under consideration?
We would like to offer our customers limited access to blacklisting
individual addresses, and it would be much
While there is a per domain/per user WHITELISTFILE feature, I do not see a
BLACKLISTFILE feature that works per domain/per user.
That is correct. What most people don't instinctively realize is that
whitelists and blacklists are *very* different. A whitelist does just one
thing: It forces an
I have our own domain and IP whitelisted and have done so since the
installation of declude spam. Is this a bad thing?
I am now noticing quite a few spam emails that are obviously not
originating from our domain, but show to be.
What are my choices to catch those as spam but also to always allow
Is there a test already that checks if the to + from fields are the same?
i.e
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP 1.2.3.4
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP insert favorite spam IP here
I realize that some people send mail to themselves as tests, but I've seen
an increase in the above.
Paul
---
[This E-mail
I have our own domain and IP whitelisted and have done so since the
installation of declude spam. Is this a bad thing?
The IP is fine. But for the domain, from the manual:
... you should never use WHITELIST FROM your_domain.com (since many
spammers will use a made-up return address on your
Hi,
I just introduced a postfix server to my Imail server running Declude
Junk/Virus Pro. Should I change the hop to 2 from 0?
All mail gets delivered to the postfix - then forwards to imail server.
Thanks in advance.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Friend.ly.net.]
---
[This E-mail
Is there a test already that checks if the to + from fields are the same?
i.e
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP 1.2.3.4
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP insert favorite spam IP here
I realize that some people send mail to themselves as tests, but I've seen
an increase in the above.
No, there isn't such a test,
Scott, the problem here was that my DNS server had died. My
IMail config lists two DNS servers - primary and secondary - to use for
lookups. Presumably if it doesn't get a reply from the primary, it will
try the secondary. In this case, the primary died and Declude didn't use
the secondary for
The new SPAMDOMAINS test would also be useful, *if* everyone sending mail
with a return address on your domain would be doing so from an IP that has
a reverse DNS entry that matches your domain.
-Scott
The struggle I'm having with putting my
Scott, the problem here was that my DNS server had died. My IMail config
lists two DNS servers - primary and secondary - to use for lookups.
Presumably if it doesn't get a reply from the primary, it will try the
secondary. In this case, the primary died and Declude didn't use the
secondary
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 1:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
I would realy like to have a filter that stops on first match. This is the
line from my log analyzer
for the last 7 days
HELOFILTER : 1036 14.96 %9.91 %
If I could optimize this Im shure there would be much less processing by
declude.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
Title: Upgrade Options
Scott,
Since declude runs off the same exe and will purchased a license for the lite version how do we go about upgrading to the other versions? Pay the difference and get a new key?
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing
I would realy like to have a filter that stops on first match. This is the
line from my log analyzer
for the last 7
Scott,
What do you think?
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing
- Original Message -
From: Kevin
I have a filter test, called FILTER1, with the following line in the
filter file that still does not catch messages full of question marks:
BODY 10 CONTAINS
Here is the tests-failed line from the headers:
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: ALLIGATESPAM1, HELOBOGUS, IPNOTINMX, WEIGHT10 [21]
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Is there a test.
Is there a test already that checks if the to + from fields are the same?
i.e
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP
Scott:
Just need to confirm that the omission of a test and its associated action
in the .junkmail files will by default set the action for that test as
IGNORE.
Thanks,
Erik
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from
Just need to confirm that the omission of a test and its associated action
in the .junkmail files will by default set the action for that test as
IGNORE.
That is correct.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail
[3] Is there any chance that the E-mail is base64 encoded (in which case
you would need to be running v1.75 for it to get caught by the filter)?
I'm running the latest release, v1.75. How do you tell if it's BASE64
encoded?
Unfortunately, that can be difficult to determine. You would need to
[3] Is there any chance that the E-mail is base64 encoded (in which
case
you would need to be running v1.75 for it to get caught by the filter)?
I'm running the latest release, v1.75. How do you tell if it's BASE64
encoded?
Unfortunately, that can be difficult to determine. You would
If you have some free time , have a look at the following site
www.try2hack.nl
9 level to pass. It's quite funny.
The first 4 level is Easy .
Regards
Rifat Levis
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail
Thank you for the heads-up, that's great news! And I'm sure it will be much
appreciated by everyone. :-)
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Levitsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bill Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] New spamcop
Anyone care to try to take a crack at this? I have unsuccessfully been
trying to whitelist this weekly email for months. In my $default$.junkmail
file, I have:
WHITELISTFILE D:\IMail\Declude\Whitelist.txt
And in the D:\IMail\Declude\Whitelist.txt file, I have these lines:
sparklist.com
here is what works for me
GLOBAL.CFG
WHITETEXT filter D:\IMail\Declude\White_Text.txt x0 0
$default$.junkmail
WHITETEXT WARN
White_Text.txt samples, adds a negative weight of 20 or 25, etc
MAILFROM -20 CONTAINS @westernunion.com
MAILFROM -25 CONTAINS .riteaid.com
BODY -20 CONTAINS for sale
42 matches
Mail list logo
