Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Verification

2006-10-11 Thread Sanford Whiteman
I use Declude to filter emails for several domains that are behind our main email box and it has worked well.  In this configuration does anyone have a quick solution for Email Account Verification for the servers behind IMail/Declude? See my sig. --Sandy

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] No Email Address

2006-10-11 Thread Darin Cox
Whoops... that should have been AVAFTERJM ON to run Virus tests after JunkMail tests, so only messages that pass JM would be tested for viruses. F-Prot is one of the fastest scanners, but it's still slower than most Junkmail tests. One last note: You should check to see that you don't have any

[Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread Dave Marchette
Has anyone figured out a reasonable way to use Declude to minimize picture spam? Sniffer is missing most. They are sent from fresh hosts, so RBLs dont catch them, and there is no target, so INVuribl misses them as well. Associates of ours are using Barracuda to stop most successfully, so

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread chris
CommTouch catches them all, I have a filter that can add some weight to image based spam, it may be able to push it over the threshold and at least quarantine it for you. Chris Asaro Technical Support Engineer Declude Your Email security is our business 866.332.5833toll free

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread Dave Marchette
Thanks Chris. CommTouch definitely seems to have promise. But for now, Id like to experiment with the filter. Is this something we can have access to? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chris Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:14 AM To:

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread chris
Sure thing, by default I think you will see the weight of 3, it pretty much will give anything imaged based this score. I would keep it to under 8 to reduce false positives, but there is room to play with the weights and even edit the filter if youd like, enjoy!! Chris Asaro

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread Darin Cox
You should note that this doesn't just catch image spam, but all email with images. So, the weight should be extremely low, if used at all, due to the large % of false positives seen by this filter. Darin. - Original Message - From: chris To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent:

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread chris
Use commtouch if your not hindered by the license Chris Asaro Technical Support Engineer Declude Your Email security is our business 866.332.5833toll free 978.499.2933office 978.477.8930 e-fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread chris
Exactly !! Chris Asaro Technical Support Engineer Declude Your Email security is our business 866.332.5833toll free 978.499.2933office 978.477.8930 e-fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread Scott Fisher
I combo thegraphics hit (jpg, gif or png) with: 1. bad DNS - None or timeout 2. bad language (eastern European iso-8859-2) or Cyrillic (koi8-r or iso-8859-5), etc 3. cmdspace 4. good DUL IP lists/tests 5. having forged your local domain. I still get 5-10 a day. It is a pain. -

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread Dave Marchette
Thanks all for the various suggestions. Agreed- combo is the way to use that test, for sure. A bit OT, but what is the popular and accurate DUL database these days? How accurate is fiveten at DUL lookups? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] picture spam

2006-10-11 Thread Scott Fisher
Sorbs-DUL and NJABL Dynablock look to be the best. Although they miss lots. 5-10's has been discontinued. - Original Message - From: Dave Marchette To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:53 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] picture