Couldn't you get around this whole issue by just adding the forwarding server to the SPF record?
Dean
On 3/5/06, Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perfectly legit email - my spf recs are perfect etc.No,it's*not*legit!Domainowners set SPF policies that dictate
On 08:54 PM 3/5/2006 -0500, it would appear that Sanford Whiteman
wrote:
Perfectly legit email - my
spf recs are perfect etc.
No, it's *not* legit!
Sure it is, SPF is NOT an RFC and if the email follows RFC then it is
legit.
My users don't
have the right to have this restriction
completely
Hi
Here are the headers from a bunch of SPAM
that is slipping through.
Subject: Re:
Para7mcy news
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
REV DNS: corporativos244254-29.etb.net.co
Date: 06
Mar 2006 at 02:42:18
Tests Failed: IPNOTINMX
[0], NOLEGITCONTENT [0], SNIFFER [7],
Declude's integration with SmarterMail's spam system is something we had
been waiting on for over a year. Declude passes the final weight back to
SM, and SM decides what to do with the message. This means you can set
different actions for each user or domain based on whatever weight is best
for
I haven't seen any business oriented material on Geocities (rhymes with
atrocities).
I've been blocking it in email and our web proxy for years, on the basis
of the security risk of the frequent malware hosting. Blocking the
spamvertisement web pages and redirectors is just an added bonus for
Message Sniffer plus any URI blacklist testis a
powerful and reliable combination. You could add keywords to make it an
even stronger weight if you wanted to maintain that.
You could also implement the COUNTRY filter and give a
little nudge weight for CO (Colombia) if you think you get very
So in your Declude configuration, you have everything set to WARN only?
And then in SmarterMail, you decide what actions to take? What impact
does unmark as spam have, in relation to Declude?
I get the feeling that this could be very powerful, in terms of dealing
with false positives, etc ...
And just for the record the CBL, SBL, and
SBL-XBL tests that you mentioned are now listed are all the same thing; only
CBL is really listing the IP address, while SBL and SBL-XBL are including the
CBL result.
Our favorite R. Scott Perry has added a little summary at the top of
DNSSTUFF
FYI, David informed me that the SM3/Declude 4.x will us the global.cfg for
actions instead of the $default$.junkmail file. This was more then a week
ago, so I don't know if this has been changed yet. (SM3 issue)
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, everything in Declude is set to WARN. SM has settings for each weight,
low, med and high (which correspond to Subject tagging, Hold and Delete in
our setup). We have a global setting for the server, and we allow any
domain admin or individual user to override these settings.
The Unmark as
Our setup is across multiple drives. I'm curious to know what issues
you had. I know on another server where we recently installed Declude
3, we had an issue with Declude proc getting installed to D:\ when
everything else was on C:\. This was resolved by moving the exe to C:\
and updating the
That seems like a pretty big issue ... Currently actions in global.cfg
only apply to outgoing mail, no?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Baranowski
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:39 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE:
What impact does unmark as spam have, in relation to Declude?
This should add the sender to SM trusted sender file which Declude checks
against for whitelisting.
David B
www.declude.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay Sudowski -
The initial release of SM 3.x they changed the format of their domains file
so everything that Declude checked was considered outgoing. This has since
been resolved with the latest release in 4.0.9 and 3.0.6 in Declude and 3.x
of SM.
David B
www.declude.com
-Original Message-
From:
Declude wouldn't even install for us. It kept giving error 8001 Error
copying files to target directory.
Our setup sounds similar to yours. We had Declude on C: and it kept trying
to install the new stuff to J: (where the SmarterMail mailboxes are). It
wouldn't copy in the new files even
"I will think about a special filter test with a keyword
what should be able to get rid of more of this SPAM."
Goran, I suggest that making a "combo" test that awards
more weight when both Message Sniffer and your URI external test trigger will be
a better value for you, as it will be far
Hi Andrew,
I was thinking specifically of a combo
filter of both SNIFFER and INVURIBL and then adding keywords. The current
campaign of one or two munged words and then news in the subject line is
annoying me since it seems to be able to slip through in the early stages. I
have already
Let me add a little 'gotcha' that I was nailed with this morning with
in relation to SmarterMail. I changed my Windows machine name on my
SmarterMail box, and the damn software stopped functioning without so
much as a pop-up. This was only apparent in the Webmail interface, and
unfortunately a
2 cents from out East. I wouldn't add much more punishment for URIBL
and Sniffer because the data is cross-checked and that can cause the
same bad piece of data to be replicated across both tests. This is
mostly apparent with bulk-mailers and obscure foreign domains, though I
don't claim that
Sure it is, SPF is NOT an RFC and if the email follows RFC then it
is legit.
I'm afraid you have a rather exaggerated opinion of the relevance of
RFCs, and of the concept of domain ownership. RFCs are meaningless
when it comes to the acceptable use of your domain (which is protected
by
20 matches
Mail list logo
