Dave Beckstrom wrote
How do you prevent
spammers from bypassing the gateway server since smartermail
doesn't support a mail port which is a send only port with
authorization?
Are you refering to a port like 587. SmarterMail does support it in its
current vesion.
What smartermail does not
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:14 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] How is declude working with smartermail?
Dave Beckstrom wrote
on 7/26/05 1:34 PM, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
. . . so hopefully Sandy can tell me how to allow ldap2aliases to
reference another port.
When using the -s option to specify the LDAP server, append the port:
-s 1.2.3.4:1389
Sandy,
That seems to work however I'm getting the size limit
on 7/27/05 7:23 AM, System Administrator wrote:
This current problem occurs when trying to use ldap2aliases on mx1 for
information on hosting2 (hosting2 is using port 1389).
Never mind. I rebooted hosting2 and now I don't get the size error on either
mx computer.
Thanks,
Greg
---
This E-mail
Hello -
I am looking for some insight on these guys. I get quite a bit of what
is best described as suspicious email from their networks - are they a
legit or are they clever spammers?
Thanks!
-Nick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I complained about the lack of participation on
Savvis themselves is a Tier1 backbone provider. We use them for our
gateways to the Net; They are an awesome company - the only provider we
have ever used that actually monitors their network. We recently
re-arranged our data center to allow for additional racks to be installed,
powered off
-Marcus:
Here's my invuribl config file...
I add points for being on various URI lists up to a max of 200.
Subject tag at 100, hold at 200, delete at 300:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=utf-8 ?
configuration
appSettings
!--License Key Required For invURIBL To Run--
add key=License_Key
Savvis is a legit provider, not a spam house.
That said they don't seem to be kicking off spammers too well.
I've got these blocks in my IPFILE:
64.14.33.0/24 64.14.33.0/24 inboxcircular2.com added 03-11-05 SBL22016
64.14.48.128/26 64.14.48.128/26 freelotto.com updtd 04-16-05
64.14.6.112/30
One more comment...
The new Declude test
HELO-DYNAMIC dynhelo x x 50 0
works almost as well as the HELOISIP external test. And it is built in.
- Original Message -
From: Markus Gufler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:37 PM
Subject:
Forum members:
I need to let you know I can not duplicate the so called CONTAINS problem
I ran into in earlier. In other words the CONTAINS directive seems to be
working ok.
David Barker requested I send sample emails, log entries, etc. for
evaluation. Not having any of the emails or Declude
We took block some IP's from Savvis:
64.41.183.130 Savvis
64.241.72.0/24 SAVVIS Communications Corporation
64.28.76.0/24 Savvis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 3:49 PM
To:
SF The new Declude test
SF HELO-DYNAMIC dynhelo x x 50 0
Any issues with this test if Declude is behind a Postfix gateway with
HOP set to 1?
--
Best regards,
Davidmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
Scott,
What type of speed are you getting from using the invuribl? We
take in/out well over 70K emails per day on each server, 1 of them takes
in/out 150K. As I understand it, it is very CPU intensive. Thanks for
the aid.
Keith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Never mind. I rebooted hosting2 and now I don't get the size error
on either mx computer.
Yep, requires a slapd restart when you change the .conf.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems,
That's a question for Declude.
Throw the test in with no weight and a WARN action and see what happens is
what I would do.
- Original Message -
From: David Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:09 AM
Subject: Re[2]:
Darrell would be a better answerer of this question:
Speed is directly dependent on the number of URIs in the email.
The runtime for most of my messages is about 1 to 2 seconds.
It tends to run longer on some ham messages with lots of links.
The SKIPWEIGHT and MAXWEIGHT options can help cut
Hi David,
If possible you should use the IPBYPASS rather than the HOP
David B
www.declude.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:27 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: Re[2]:
DB If possible you should use the IPBYPASS rather than the HOP
Any particular reason? ALL mail passes through the PF gateways first.
Imail/Declude can't be touched from any outside network. The only port
25 allowed into their LAN segment is from the segment that the PF
gateways are on.
--
On my system I process about 120K messages a day. The system is a dual xeon
2.8ghz 1GB of ram. The servers CPU usage throughout the day ranges from 30%
- 70%. Their are spikes at 100% but they are short lived and correlated to
a rush of incoming mail. The average scan time a message takes
David,
Either configuration in your case should work. However from Scott's Perry
comments regarding the HOP and IPBYPASS.
Normally, you will leave the HOP setting at HOP 0, and use an IPBYPASS
line for each gateway or backup mail server.
6.2 Skipping your backup mail server or gateways
Just
I was just checking some of my results on the RBL's and the spammers are
defintely getting smarter.
When I started using Declude in Feb 2004, Spamcop hit on 83% of all the spam
messages.
For June 2005, Spamcop hit on 48% of all spam messages.
Fiveten Spam dropped from 62% to 41% in the same
So whitelisting the recipient is always a last
resort? Better to find out where they are not getting their mail and
whitelist that or find out why they are not getting their expected
mail..?
Richard FarrisEthixs Online1.270.247.
Office1.800.548.3877 Tech Support"Crossroads to a Cleaner
Richard,
Instead of whitelisting we use negative weight on DNS names.
REVDNS -10 ENDSWITH .dell.com
Darrell
DLAnalyzer - Comprehensive reporting for Declude Junkmail and Virus.
http://www.invariantsystems.com
Richard Farris writes:
So whitelisting
Just a curiosity: I received an email from someone at Veritas, and the
subject line was:
Fw: [WARNING - POSSIBLY NOT VIRUS SCANNED]Re: VERITAS Support: Case ID
I'm assuming that this warning was added by their system? Why would they do
that? If they knew it wasn't scanned, why wouldn't they
24 matches
Mail list logo
