On 7/27/2010 2:10 PM, Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Flavour of the day:
Relevant bits of the header:
Received: from payoff.all-debt-forever.com [173.192.161.27]
Subject: Stay on top of your credit report
Thanks -- coded some rules, will be looking for abstract opportunities.
Also coded several
ttp://payoff.all-debt-forever.com/78a7d79a040f797d40213817450579288
Andrew 8)
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 6:40 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Regex to block t
On 7/23/2010 9:19 PM, Matt wrote:
I guess my point here is that they are both very high volume spammers,
and they both randomize sufficiently so that blocking them requires
blocking their domains and having the samples available, but putting
in proactive rules will only last a short time. What
I guess my point here is that they are both very high volume spammers,
and they both randomize sufficiently so that blocking them requires
blocking their domains and having the samples available, but putting in
proactive rules will only last a short time. What Sniffer may need is a
better sour
On 7/23/2010 6:37 PM, Matt wrote:
Pete,
Will do. I call this spammer Whitestone,
Much appreciated. I'll take a closer look with the team to see what we
can do to close these guys down better.
Thanks!
_M
--
President
MicroNeil Research Corporation
www.microneil.com
---
[This E-mail scann
Pete,
Will do. I call this spammer Whitestone, but there is another very
prolific spammer that also has the same volume named BlooSky Interactive
(real company name) that is also frequently missed. I'm guessing that
they aren't landing in spam traps to the same degree as some others, or
you
23, 2010 1:30 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Regex to block this?
I strongly suggest not doing this exact test. Scott's is more refined,
however it's still not refined enough to not have false positives.
This spammer is better caught by his boundary, f
1:30 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Regex to block this?
I strongly suggest not doing this exact test. Scott's is more refined,
however it's still not refined enough to not have false positives.
This spammer is better caught by his bounda
On 7/23/2010 2:29 PM, Matt wrote:
This spammer accounts for about 7% of all E-mail that makes it to my
deep scanning layer. Sniffer seems to miss a good deal of their spam,
so there isn't much protection from it otherwise.
Matt -- Is it possible for you to zip up some samples from this guy a
I strongly suggest not doing this exact test. Scott's is more refined,
however it's still not refined enough to not have false positives.
This spammer is better caught by his boundary, for example:
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_NextPart_Njg3YmQ3N2JiYzdlZGU3YzZlZmFhY2NhNG
Thanks. David's regex worked well. I'll give the fine tuning a try.
Also, all of this spammer's domains are in DNS servers ns1.domainsite.com -
ns4.domainsite.com.
> I might fine tune it a bit.
> I've only seen length 37 and 38 characters after the tld
> It is only lower case hex codes so
I might fine tune it a bit.
I've only seen length 37 and 38 characters after the tld
It is only lower case hex codes so you can exclude (g-z)
I've seen lots of .info and a few .nets as additional tld.
Very active spammer here
(?i:href=.+\.(com|info|net)/[a-f0-9]{37,38}">)
-Original Message---
Hi Dave,
Give this a try it is what you have asked for. Test it first to see if it
gives you the results you are looking for.
(?i:href=.+\.com/[a-z0-9]+">)
David
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Beckstrom
Sent: Tuesday, July 2
That's for people who have not yet upgraded I will remove it once we see the
majority of our customers on 4.10.53+
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Bonno
Bloksma
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:41 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subjec
Hi,
Just downloaded the latest global.cfg file to compare mine with and it still
has the old ZEROHOUR 12 line.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Bonno Bloksma
senior systeembeheerder
tio
hogeschool hospitality en toerisme
begijnenhof 8-12 / 5611 el eindhoven
t 040 296 28 28 / f 040 237 35 20
b.blok..
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] dns servers for declude
Hi Bono,
We can look at adding a second DNS entry to declude.
1. What was your DNS failure ?
2. Under what circumstances would you
Hi Bono,
We can look at adding a second DNS entry to declude.
1. What was your DNS failure ?
2. Under what circumstances would you want Declude to switch to the
secondary DNS server ?
Does anyone have ideas as to what this should look like so that I can scope
the requirem
Hi Dave,
Unless that name server is listed in one of the RBLs already, you'd have to
set up your own RBL zone on your name server and then check against that.
Here's the appropriate section of the config file:
We are running another Delude/Sniffer box for as an outbound gateway.
All internal email servers, web and app servers that need to send emails are
filtered thru this first. The purpose of this is to stop hijacked accts, as
well as stopping the spread of known cataloged spam that sniffer is a
Why does Hijack not work for you?
It has caught several infected customers for me now.
I pause mail for clients if more than 100 are sent in 10 minutes.
I hold mail if more than 400 are sent in 30 minutes.
So at the worst 400 spams could go out.
My clients know the limits.
E
spectfully,
Michael Cummins
http://www.cummins.us | mich...@cummins.us
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
Schick
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 3:11 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Mail
Do you require S
Do you require SMTP authentication? We enforce SMTP authentication and port
587 for SMTP outbound. So far, I have not seen a virus or worm that uses
SMTP authentication.
Chuck
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Cummins
Sent: Wednesday, June 16
Wow Andy. Great read. Thank you for passing it along.
From: Andy Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:26 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] FTC Permanently Shuts Down Notorious Rogue Internet
Service Provider
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/05/perm.shtm
---
This
The name of the test can be anything you want. So if you prefer zerohour for
the name of the test that is fine.
From: "Andy Schmidt"
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 3:15 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Inter
Hi Dave,
Thanks. Question, assuming that some folks have likely defined actions based
on "ZEROHOUR", or referred to that name in Filters, etc. - wouldn't it be
more appropriate for everyone to configure the new test as:
ZEROHOUR ZEROHOURxx 12
0
e and the time and date of the error.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:29 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS Website Down?
It may have been down when you looked, Andy.
Thanks Andrew - it was down for a long time - but now I can get it. Thanks
for reassuring me.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:29 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS Website
It may have been down when you looked, Andy. It's up now.
Also, I like to use this 3rd party for an instant second opinion:
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com
Andrew 8)
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Se
...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:51 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
Hi Darin,
I have been fortunate that my customers (or their network consultants) were
able to ope
12, 2010 4:32 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
This is about 1/3 of the process to sync the servers. Then there's the
processing of the file on the gateway to add/delete accounts as needed, and
the minor Exchange config changes to accept mail
xternal process would
take a lot longer to coordinate on a per-customer basis.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
Not sure that this list supports at
lligate is going to help you with a lot of this, and this is exactly what
it is for.
Brian Milburn
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Cummins
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:25 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine
path to their email users.
Once that succeeds I can simply take that info and use it as the parameters
to my script.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Cummins
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:25 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.Junk
PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
Hi Michael:
I have a Windows script that I use with a whole bunch of different Exchange
customers to pull their email addresses from their servers and dump them
into a small JET (.mdb = Access) Database
.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Cummins
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:14 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
I wrote a batch file once on a number of the exchange servers that used VBS
and LDAP to generate a list of valid exchange recipients and t
:p
Very Respectfully,
Michael Cummins
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of
Darin Cox
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:55 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
Hi Michael,
I may be able to help with this. Yo
mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Darin
Cox
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:55 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
Hi Michael,
I may be able to help with this. You mention doing gateway filtering for
Exchange servers. We also do
55 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
Hi Michael,
I may be able to help with this. You mention doing gateway filtering for
Exchange servers. We also do that, but instead of accepting any address with
the domain, we have accounts set up on our server and refuse connections
Hi Michael,
I may be able to help with this. You mention doing gateway filtering for
Exchange servers. We also do that, but instead of accepting any address with
the domain, we have accounts set up on our server and refuse connections that
don't go to one of those accounts.
Now your next com
Hardware reqs for alligate are fairly low too
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: "Michael Cummins"
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:17:13
To:
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
I actually paid for Alligate a couple of years ago, but then ha
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
I actually paid for Alligate a couple of years ago, but then had
to repurpose the hardware for a casualty before I could install it and trial
it.
I never got around to putting it together after that (I'm
t.
-- Michael Cummins
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:54 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
I put an alligate server in front of Declude. It ki
I solved the load issue by putting Alligate in front of the mail server. I
put it in the same server and can handle everything coming at it much better
than before. Alligate gets rid of the obvious spam, about 90 %, before it
hits my mail software
Thank you
Please note our new Address
I put an alligate server in front of Declude. It kills about 95% of incoming
connections.
Declude Intercepter incorporates this
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: "Michael Cummins"
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:25:57
To:
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Fine tuning Declude
So
Title: Release 4.10.42
On 5/5/2010 4:05 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
The
golden rule for external tests and for RBLs is – if
you have multiple lines using the SAME “command”
(e.g., the 18 “SNF” lines), or referring to the same external
program (e.g., 5 invURIBL lines), or
the
same golden rule applies here even though these are NOT multiple lines of
the SAME command.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:47 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integr
Title: Release 4.10.42
On 5/5/2010 3:24 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi
Dave
(just in case this got overlooked – or I missed the
answer),
>>
Also even though
there are multiple entries the test only runs once and the resulted
exit code
is the triggered. <<
I
know that al
, May 05, 2010 3:14 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight
Scheme
On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Dave,
Hm - yes,I think if you added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the
config file, you would have could cover
/3?
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
The test works as a
On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Dave,
Hm –
yes,I think if you
added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the config file, you would
have could
cover the reputation range from -1 to +1 in 0.1 step increments.
Not
elegant – but would
have the same effect
.
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 12:12 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight
Scheme
Just a thought. We would have
: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:52 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight
Scheme
Hi Dave,
I'm breaking this into two discussions as they ar
Yes you are correct this was reported to us . The file should have been
updated with this release. I will ensure this is resolved. To correct this.
In the snf_engine.xml change To
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8
depending on "how
good" the IP is).
This would make the test really useful because it would only cause BIG
weight changes for BIG GBUdb values.
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:40
ty on with the use of this test.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:28 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer "BasePoint"
Hi Dave,
Let's keep the BasePoint a
om [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:40 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation for "white" listing
As Pete already provided input on this. I am not going to prolix the answer
other than
mpromise for "day-to-day" use.
Best Regards,
Andy
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:57 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer
Excellent - THANKS!
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:44 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SNFIP option for "WHITE"?
The exit codes are as follows
m [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:57 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation for "white" listing
> But your documentation of the reputation system has a graph that shows
that
&
nt: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:19 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Reporting of Tests Failed Incomplete?
I will check with engineering. If this is an easy change I will get it in an
interim soon, also with the "nonzero" for SNF as we discussed in an earli
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
The test works as an internal test and not as an exter
1:10 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Reporting of Tests Failed Incomplete?
Hi Dave,
I agree with you that the total weight of 9 is correct (I had already
"piecemealed" that arithmetic together in my msg).
>> As Commtouch Zerohour was implemente
so all we need is to get the missing ZEROHOUR included, so that it
truly IS a list of non-zero tests.
Thanks for checking into this.
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:10 PM
To: declude.junkmail@
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Comerford
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:45 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Enumerating and Weighting IP4R/RHSBL/DNSBL
The Tests failed (Triggered) showing tests that ARE triggered. In this case:
Tests failed [weight=9]:
SPFPASS=IGNORE[-2]
CONTENT=IGNORE[7]
ZEROHOUR=WEIGHT[6]
Total: 11
As nIPNOTINMX:-2 is NOT triggered it cannot be in the same list of emails
that ARE triggered, providing the -2
Check declude's diag.txt or diags.txt it will list all tests
I think it gets created when decludeproc service starts so you may need to
restart the service to get a current copy
Verbose logs also have tons of info
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: David Dodell
Date: Su
On 5/1/2010 1:51 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Right - that's the same scheme I just pointed
out to Dave
myself - except in my case you could pick a distinct factor for the
"-" vs. the "+" side of the scale (because Declude already
has that option anyhow)
I was trying
riginal Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:57 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation for "white" listing
On 4/30/2010 9:32 PM, Andy Schmidt
I happen to run Invariant Software's "Declude Analyzer" (for Declude Virus
and Declude Spam).
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Dodell
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 12:39 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMai
current declude settings is your opinion. What would be
helpful is making a suggestion to what settings you use based on your
results.
David
_
From: "Andy Schmidt"
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 9:26 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniff
On 4/30/2010 9:32 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
But your documentation of the reputation system has a graph that shows that
there is yet another category: "WHITE".
I don't know the details of Declude's impelementation. Presumably they
could (or maybe even do) implement WHITE.
The SNFIPREP
: Friday, April 30, 2010 9:26 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP vs. Sniffer IP Reputation vs.
Sniffer Truncate
Thanks Pete - that confirms what I feared.
Declude's own sample should NOT be used "as is" because it duplicates the
IP
resu
lude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 7:07 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP vs. Sniffer IP Reputation vs.
Sniffer Truncate
On 4/30/2010 5:16 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> I'
ct). It's not at all clear that after all
their Sniffer rules, 30 would be added to the weight in several cases.
-----Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 7:07 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sub
On 4/30/2010 5:16 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Pete,
I'm look over Decludes recommended Sniffer configuration and trying to
understand how much overlap there is between these options:
IPREPUTATIONSNFIPREPx 0 10 -5
SNFIPCAUTIONSNFIP x
ailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
The test works as an internal test and not as an external test. The main
d
Hi Pete,
I'm look over Decludes recommended Sniffer configuration and trying to
understand how much overlap there is between these options:
IPREPUTATIONSNFIPREPx 0 10 -5
SNFIPCAUTIONSNFIP x 4 5 0
SNFIPBL
On 4/30/2010 2:10 PM, Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Pete> Odd that nobody complained about it before.
I hadn't implemented it yet... And I'm a complainer.
Andrew ;)
You go right on complaining!
How else are we going to make things perfect?!
Thanks for the M2B (Minimum Two Brains) !
_M
-
While we're at it what is the difference between the two results below
SNIFIP4R=WARN[5]
SNIFIP4R=IGNORE[5]
Thanks
John
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to imail...@declude.com, and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMai
complainer.
Andrew ;)
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:02 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
There aren't that many RFC ha
to query a DNSBL for your own
localhost address.
Andrew 8)
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:48 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate
There aren't that many RFC hawks around here these days :)
Matt
On 4/30/2010 1:48 PM, Pete McNeil wrote:
So it is by convention that the result code would be 127.0.0.2 -- not
a rule.
I have no problem with this... I will make the change... better to do
it now than later.
Odd that nobody com
On 4/30/2010 1:17 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
It
is – and I agree with you!
From:
supp...@declude.com
[mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:53 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] We have
:17 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
It
is – and I agree with you!
From:
supp...@declude.com
[mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:53 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up
truncate.gbud
* Friday, April 30, 2010 12:53 PM
*To:* declude.junkmail@declude.com
*Subject:* Re: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
Is the result code really 127.0.0.1? That is totally non-standard.
It should be 127.0.0.2 or higher.
Matt
On 4/30/2010 11:31 AM, Nick Hayer wrote:
you
It is - and I agree with you!
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:53 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
Is the result code really 127.0.0.1? That is
*: "Michael Cummins"
*Sent*: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:20 AM
*To*: declude.junkmail@declude.com
*Subject*: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
That's odd. This is what I already configured it for on my first guess:
TRUNCATE-GBUDB IP4Rtru
FER external nonzero
"D:\IMAIL\Declude\SNF\SNFClient.exe"12 0
-Jim
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject:
t.exe"12 0
-Jim
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
half Of Michael
Cummins
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
That's odd. This is what I already configured it for on my first guess:
TRUNCATE-GBUDB IP4Rtruncate.gbudb.net
I have already added it to the dev list as an idea.
David
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:52 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"
ouncement for a new
"exit code" whenever Peter decides to extend the list
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global
://www.skywaves.com/content/secure/support_ticket.htm
From: "Michael Cummins"
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:20 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
That's odd.
.
David
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:31 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
Hi Dave,
Thanks for taking the ti
d nslookup?
- Michael Cummins
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Nick
Hayer
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:00 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
here ya go
IP4R.GBUBD
ticket:
https://www.skywaves.com/content/secure/support_ticket.htm
From: "Michael Cummins"
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 9:36 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
I don
0
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:05 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration
SNFIPBLACK SNFIP the 2nd variable value is 5 = Block and
e.com
, April 30, 2010 1:26 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration
Hi,
1. I'm confused about the Sniffer integration sample:
SNFIPBLACK SNFIP x 5 10 0
IPREPUTATIONSN
I don't think I set it up properly as an ip4r test in Declude.
What would the line look like, if written properly?
Thanks for your time and effort.
-- Michael Cummins
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Thursday, Apr
gards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 4:49 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] We have opened up truncate.gbudb.net
On 4/29/2010 10:06 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Thanks - I acti
401 - 500 of 25088 matches
Mail list logo
