PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more
confusion
David,
Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible
codes are there
and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere?
Thanks,
Dan
On Feb 24, 2006, at 5
eclude.com/tools/header.php
David B
www.declude.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusio
lf Of Dan
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 8:40 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
David,
Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes
are there
and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywher
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 8:40 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
David,
Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there
and is th
D]>To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com>Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion> David,>> Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are> there and is there a comprehensive invento
I doubt you'll get a list. I imagine this is proprietary information for
Declude.
- Original Message -
From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
David,
Par
I doubt yo
- Original Message -
From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
David,
Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes
are
I doubty
- Original Message -
From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
David,
Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes
are
vid B
www.declude.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Thanks Matt. I don'
: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on
both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to
learn.
I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you
had
Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have
spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I
still have to learn.
I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking
you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client.
Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these
two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's
SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from
the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through
another se
Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the
SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender
is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from
this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at
other messages sent by ot
It looks like someone's powerbook is connecting directly to your server
based on the headers that you provided. Still, the same advice goes for
anyone still running IMail 7.x or below and using Declude.
Matt
Orin Wells wrote:
Actually this isn't "our user" but something I get frequently fr
Actually this isn't "our user" but something I get frequently from
outside and I am trying to give them a clue as to what they need to
do to clean up their act.
Thanks for the confirmation.
At 02:08 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote:
It appears that it was sent without a Message-ID. The Message-ID
sh
It appears that it was sent without a Message-ID. The Message-ID shown
is one that IMail inserted and not one that the E-mail client inserted.
You should be whitelisting your own users if at all possible.
Unfortunately you can't do this in IMail 7.07, but Declude does support
this in 8.x or
Can anyone tell me why this is failing the SPAMHEADERS check? I know
the reasons for the REVDNS and the HELOBOGUS but I am unsure about
the SPAMHEADERS. I suspect it may be the placement of the
MESSAGE-ID. Normally this appears near the top of the headers. Here
it appears just above the Dec
es For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:00 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders
>
> I care if my users
IL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:45 PM
> > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders
> >
> > I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's
> method
>
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders
Who cares if the client is authenticating and you are whitelisting
authentication?
John T
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.Junk
5:45 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders
>
> I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's
method
> of scanning outgoing email. Also note the emails also fail the test
> "cmdspace" (space in receipt
I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's method
of scanning outgoing email. Also note the emails also fail the test
"cmdspace" (space in receipt to command).
Users/clients sending e-mail out should be authenticating and
authentication
should be whitelisted henc
spamheaders test.
John T
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:20 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: [Declude.Jun
Anyone using norton av 2005 with outlook express with outgoing mail scanning
enabled will trip the spamheaders test. I just thought everyone should
know. I guess that just about obsoletes this test now?
I am using declude 1.81
Travis
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing
MAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bill.maillists
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:59 AM
>To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
>Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
>
>Barry,
>
>Thank you. To confirm, I should downgrade to 1.82 f
When and were will this update be available?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:34 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Bill,
New
5 10:33:37 -0500
>Bill,
>
>New exe is being sent to you.
>
>Barry
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM
>To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
>Subject: [Dec
declude.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:33:37 -0500
>Bill,
>
>New exe is being sent to you.
>
>Barry
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM
>To: decl
Of bill.maillists
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:59 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Barry,
Thank you. To confirm, I should downgrade to 1.82 from 2.0b? Will this cause
any problems?
Bill
-- Original Message
Bill,
New exe is being sent to you.
Barry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
I am running 2.0b and
I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for 2.0b
available?
Bill
---
[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 PROTECTED],
Kevin and Dan-
Thanks!
-Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Bilbee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] "SPAMHEADERS"?
> You can use the tool Scott has setup to look u
e Doherty
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:26 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] "SPAMHEADERS"?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone tell me why this one failed the SPAMHEADERS test?
>
> -Dave Doherty
> Skywaves, Inc.
>
>
>
>
http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420e
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] "SPAMHEADERS"?
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone te
Hi,
Can anyone tell me why this one failed the SPAMHEADERS test?
-Dave Doherty
Skywaves, Inc.
Received: from IlanXP [68.236.177.124] by inettec.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.05) id A69B29201E4; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:30:03 -0400
From: "Ilan Cyzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Dave Doherty'" <[EMAIL
>But Scott - it appears that there IS a Message-ID in the piece that you
>quoted me!?
Yes -- but it is one that IMail adds. I forgot to mention that. IMail
will add the Message-ID: header if it does not yet exist, using the domain
that the mail claims to be from.
, May 14, 2001 01:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: REVDNS:Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS false positives
>Subject: failure notice
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-RBL-Warning: Suspected SPAM. Failed heuristic test - SPAM [0.999711]
This E-mail failed the SPAMHEADERS test
>Subject: failure notice
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-RBL-Warning: Suspected SPAM. Failed heuristic test - SPAM [0.999711]
This E-mail failed the SPAMHEADERS test because it did not include a
Message-ID: header when it was received by IMail. Virtually all mail
clients add this header,
Hi Scott,
SPAMHEADERS seems to be very effective and I'd like to use it.
For that reason, I'd like to see if we can eliminate some false positives.
Here is a header that failed:
05/12/2001 20:10:20 Qd0e10a8 Msg failed SPAMHEADERS (poor headers
[4202]).
05/12/2001 20:10:20 Qd0e10a8 Msg fail
39 matches
Mail list logo
