Count me in..
- Original Message -
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
> Count me in!
>
>
Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude JunkMail? on Monday
8:34:08 PM
Yes this would be valuable. It could be launched into IIS from an
actual link in the Imail web templates going to an alternate port, so
it would not seem so
Count me in!
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:49 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude JunkMail?
> A lot of our customers seem to want a
> Elegant solution Sandy.
> Very nice work.
Thanks!Theclient just got interested in some major
improvements--well, honestly, one department of insufferables demanded
that they be able to turn off our "insulting" alerts to their moronic
contacts--so I should be coding a blue s
Wednesday, December 18, 2002 you wrote:
SW> I have, in defiance of the usual prohibitions, sent a screen shot
SW> of what I have running *within IMail*, since everyone but Tom
SW> seems to think this is a non-issue. I will send my beta code to
SW> anyone who's interested.
Elegant solution Sandy.
V
TA and not guaranteed to do anything. :)
rusty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sanford
Whiteman
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 9:00 PM
To: Tom
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declud
9:00 PM
To: Tom
Cc:
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
>> Nobody seems to have acknowledged my message about REDIRECTing to
>> PLAN.IMA for per-user actions, but I am
Guess it depends on the cost ?
-- Original Message --
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:49:40 -0500
>A lot of our customers seem to want a web interface to Declude JunkMail,
>mostly so that cu
>> Nobody seems to have acknowledged my message about REDIRECTing to
>> PLAN.IMA for per-user actions, but I am using the method with great
>> success to provide user self-management from *within* IMail Web
>> Messaging. If I, no JavaScript guru, can do it, surely others could
>> go this or
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
> JunkMail?
>
>
>
> >How are subscribers going to log into a web interface? Won't they
The program alias could be used effectively if it were a web generated email
message. It could be hosted on another machine/os/programming language etc
if it were all handled as a program alias.
Create a couple of examples and Administrators could modify to their hearts
content.
David
> >Could w
>> I have Declude scanning all mail using an undocumented technique. I
>> will post it, if you promise not to ask Scott directly (seriously).
> Please pretty please.
The reason Declude cannot scan mail sent from IWEBMSG is that IWEBMSG
uses IMAIL1 to encode messages, and IMAIL1 is hard-coded t
>However, as a school I would simply enforce the spam control and too bad
>some legitimate mail gets caught. I will have a look at those mails once or
>twice a week and forward them if they seem legit. For THAT I would like a
>simple to use tool, either a small web interface or a gui tool to quickl
Hi,
> >That's already there -- the configuration files are plain text files, and
> >can be accessed with ASP, PHP, proprietary interface, etc. :)
> >
> >I'm not sure if the advantages of an API (not having to deal with the
text
> >files directly) would outweigh the disadvantages (less flexibility
>That's already there -- the configuration files are plain text files, and
>can be accessed with ASP, PHP, proprietary interface, etc. :)
>
>I'm not sure if the advantages of an API (not having to deal with the text
>files directly) would outweigh the disadvantages (less flexibility).
>
Scott,
In response to additional info and questions please see below. When
could we anticipate an ETA?
Is this something that others would find useful? It
definitely would be
easier for us to implement.
***Regarding end user spam control via e-mail subscribe method. This
would be a nice optio
Hi,
> > Many people, including me, have asked IpSwitch to do something like
> > this. Also because declude does NOT get called when e-mail in
> > entered using the web interface.
>
> I have Declude scanning all mail using an undocumented technique. I
> will post it, if you promise no
> Many people, including me, have asked IpSwitch to do something like
> this. Also because declude does NOT get called when e-mail in
> entered using the web interface.
I have Declude scanning all mail using an undocumented technique. I
will post it, if you promise not to ask Scott d
Hi,
> Say the word and I'm sure that we'll be more than happy to start
> campaigning Ipswitch to do it! :)
Many people, including me, have asked IpSwitch to do something like this.
Also because declude does NOT get called when e-mail in entered using the
web interface. IpSwitch will simply not in
> E-mail is sent to entered e-mail address for conformation
Well, I guess we know what you're doing with the bounces. :)
-Sandy
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just
> Mark,
>
> > However, a web GUI will be very hard to do without the
> 'masters'
> > kept in a database. Without a database you'll run into
> file locking
> > problems and it will be harder to deal with single records.
>
> > ODBC for text files? :)
>
> I fear you've been in the MS world
Chuck,
> Ok, I just have to say it. As Declude evolves, I think their
> dependance on Imail needs to lessen (another good reason for Declude
> provided HTTP service).
See my earlier post for some thoughts on this.
-Sandy
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://
Mark,
> However, a web GUI will be very hard to do without the 'masters'
> kept in a database. Without a database you'll run into file locking
> problems and it will be harder to deal with single records.
> ODBC for text files? :)
I fear you've been in the MS world too long. When ODBC is us
> On reflection ... you're probably right that it would just shift the
support
burden from making configuration changes to explaining how to make
configuration changes.
And, I think the later would actually be more work.
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
F
Naber
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
>Could we take a lower tech route and use the progr
> One problem I see (Sandy and others, please jump in) is that whitelisting
is
easy to mess up, and a crack that the "law of unintended consequences" will
exploit. Two examples: the example in Scott's manual that says whitelisting
mail.com is probably a bad idea, and whitelisting
postmaster@[yourd
>>And on the gripping hand...
LOL, Niven rocks!
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL
We bought Declude based on a few things we wanted:
* Lower the time spent by IT on spam.
* An MTA gateway in our DMZ.
* Good reporting.
* Windows based solution.
* Don't throw too much money at the solution.
* RBL ability
* text matching ability
* Lean on dynamic databases on the Internet.
* Overr
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
Say the word and I'm sure that we'll be more tha
The Declude users lobby group!!! Count me in.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: 17 December 2002 16:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
Say the word and
Could we take a lower tech route and use the program alias capabilities?
Make changing your spam settings similar to subscribing/unsubscribing from a
mailing list.
I picture something along the lines of sending a change request to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I get back a form where I can change the
setting
AIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for
> Declude JunkMail?
>
>
>
> >Is there any hook into the iMail web interface/server?
>
> No.
>
> With about 10-20 lines of code, IMail could do it, but they
> don't seem to
Tuesday, December 17, 2002 you wrote:
P> What we would most likely not do is use a database (the flat files
P> seem to work very well, and are very efficient), use IIS (a lot of
P> people don't want to use it, for security reasons), or any special
P> technologies (such as dot NET, ASP, CF, etc.). W
OTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
>I agree that the flat files work well for Junkmail itself. However, a
>web GUI will be very hard to do without the 'masters' kept in a
database.
>Without a database you'll run into fil
ED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
I don't mean to cross you and it is a question out of it's time seeing
as you haven't made any decisions yet but what about functionality and
extensibility of your "proprietary" platform? A
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
>I agree that the flat files work well for Junkmail itself. However, a
>web GUI
IL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John
> Tolmachoff
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for
> Declude JunkMail?
>
>
> > The users are asking me to make
> That's why we try stay away from the bleeding edge technology
> -- there's a
> reason they use the word "bleeding". It will actually be
> easier for us to
> use a flat file than to use a database.
ODBC for text files? :)
> Sorry, I should have included PHP in that list (which is amazingly
This is something we would buy into rather than develop ourselves (we
already started) as I rather rely on those who know Declude inside out
rather than us making mistakes and getting things wrong (I'm making the
assumption that Scott will tend to make a one or two less errors than we
would with th
> The users are asking me to make these decisions as they don't want a lot
of
the crap coming in.
If you have to provide hands on service for users, make sure you charge for
such.
> I will do the best I can but I also feel they need to be
responsible and quit going places and signing up for all t
> What we would most likely not do is use a database (the flat
> files seem to
> work very well, and are very efficient),
I agree that the flat files work well for Junkmail itself. However, a
web GUI will be very hard to do without the 'masters' kept in a
database.
Without a database you'll run
th it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
As far as users, I am against it.
Like others have
As far as users, I am against it.
Like others have said, allowing a user to make configuration changes will be
an invitation to a migraine headache.
What I do like is how some have the idea of allowing a user to make a choice
of 3-5 options: No blocking, minimum blocking, aggressive blocking, an
at damage they would do with a
Declude web interface =) "I can't get any mail, I didn't DO anything!
Honest!"
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "J Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:46 PM
Subjec
Monday, December 16, 2002 you wrote:
> A lot of our customers seem to want a web interface to Declude
> JunkMail, mostly so that customers can turn their spam settings on
> or off.
Yes, I thought about it again this morning as I was scrolling
through 476 trapped messages from overnight. Actua
lf Of
> Avolve Support
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for
> Declude JunkMail?
>
>
> Double yes and Christmas wish !
>
> -- Original Message -
L PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
>Sent: 17 December 2002 00:50
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
>JunkMail?
>
>
>A lot of our customers seem to want a web interface to Declude JunkM
A definite yes.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: 17 December 2002 00:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
A lot of our customers seem to want a web
Decjunkmail,
I have a few comments on your post.
> The lack of a web-based GUI is probably the one main feature that
> keeps some of your competitors in business.
I disagree strongly. I can't say what Scott's competitive research has
shown, but the fact that Declude is a third-party
> Nobody seems to have acknowledged my message about REDIRECTing to
> PLAN.IMA for per-user actions, but I am using the method with great
> success to provide user self-management from *within* IMail Web
> Messaging. If I, no JavaScript guru, can do it, surely others could go
> this
Absolutely!
Given the already vocal comments on this list, here's my few cents worth:
The lack of a web-based GUI is probably the one main feature that keeps some of your
competitors in business.
Given the relatively low-cost of Declude, even the Pro version compared with the
multi-thousand do
being uneasy filtering Spam.
-Don S.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Patnode
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude
JunkMail?
Scott,
ld be nice. I would want to be able
to define a default when setting up new accounts.
-Don S.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] An optiona
Scott,
I've spent thousands of hours (as many of us have) perfecting a universally applicable
configuration (as diverse as my client base allows).
On the server side, when there's a flaw in the system revealed by an FP, changing the
entire system means all other clients benefit from the chang
> Admittedly, we're a small ISP and may not be representative of the
> entire group, but I'm not convinced we would even use such a
> product.
Okay, makes sense. Many admins would quite sensibly not want to
surrender control, and server resources, to a chaotic--not to say
ign
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:49 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interface for Declude JunkMail?
> A lot of our customers seem to want a web interface to Declude JunkMail,
> mostly so that customers can turn their spam settings on or off.
>
> We haven't
Several contributors to this list have talked about or have shown
preliminary tools. We started working on something as well a few wekks ago
as well. It might be worthwhile to pool the work already begun or take
something that has a promissing start.
David
> > Is this something that is impor
> Is this something that is important enough that it would be
> worthwhile?
I don't think it's worth the effort technically, though it may well be
so in a financial sense.
Nobody seems to have acknowledged my message about REDIRECTing to
PLAN.IMA for per-user actions, but I am us
If I could give users granular control over their own spam settings, that would get me
off the hook for doing it for them.
What you're describing, though, sounds almighty complex. On the surface (admittedly
:D) It would be fairly straightforward to write in ColdFusion, if all we're talking
abo
rk the link, it
should not be a big deal to reconnect to the spam administration site.
I vote yes!
Bill
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] An optional web interf
A lot of our customers seem to want a web interface to Declude JunkMail,
mostly so that customers can turn their spam settings on or off.
We haven't come up with something in the past, because it is very
complicated without a hook into web messaging, and it doesn't look like
Ipswitch is plannin
61 matches
Mail list logo
