:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
Kami Razvan wrote:
I have spent a lot of my years in the field of mathematics. A study
done a while back and it is related to data-mining stated.. men buy
baby diapers and orange juice on Tuesdays more than any
] Declude not taking action
Kami Razvan wrote:
I have spent a lot of my years in the field of mathematics. A study
done a while back and it is related to data-mining stated.. men buy
baby diapers and orange juice on Tuesdays more than any other day of the
week.
Sure it's useful
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 4:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
I did some math related to my machine assuming 1/5 of a second window
for this bug
the headers of the copy that Imail delivered\stole have any Declude markings in the header?
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Bramble [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
Dave
Dave Marchette wrote:
Gotcha. But do the headers of the copy that Imail delivered\stole have any
Declude markings in the header?
===
Hi again..
This is another one I just noticed.
Received: from 69.0.99.172.adsl.snet.net [69.0.99.172] by
- In our configuration we do all the IP4r tests in IMail and add header for
Declude to analyze. It is as if IMail never added the headers.. Since none
are there. Could it be that IMail somehow skips its own spam test? Should
we not expect if IMail has done all that it was to do the headers
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 5:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
I figure that each individual E-mail on my system has about a 0.6%
chance of being stolen and delivered by the queue.
Matt:
I have spent a lot of my years in the field of mathematics. A study done a
while back and it is related to data-mining stated.. men buy baby diapers
and orange juice
, 2003 1:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
I figure that each individual E-mail on my system has about a 0.6%
chance of being stolen and delivered by the queue.
Matt:
I have spent a lot of my years in the field of mathematics. A study done
Not related to your problem but do yourself a favor block @mcsi.net
only thing I ever seen from there is spam.
Best regards,
Eje Aya Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com
Phone : 620-231- Fax :
Kami Razvan wrote:
I have spent a lot of my years in the field of mathematics. A study done a
while back and it is related to data-mining stated.. men buy baby diapers
and orange juice on Tuesdays more than any other day of the week.
Sure it's useful, what it says is that there is something
Dave,
It appears that the E-mail getting delivered improperly is the result of
IMail stealing a copy and processing it apart from Declude. In the
example that I provided, Declude deleted the copy that it got because it
scored too high, but IMail delivered a copy before it was scanned by
Gotcha. But do the headers of the copy that Imail delivered\stole have any Declude
markings in the header?
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Bramble [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude
] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
Dave,
It appears that the E-mail getting delivered improperly is the result of
IMail stealing a copy
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 4:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
I did some math related to my machine assuming 1/5 of a second window
] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists)
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
This issue has really gotten my attention since one of the 0.1% of
messages
not scanned happened to have a virus attachment
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action, IMail 7.15 H2
with Declude 1.76i30 H2 with Declude 1.76i30 Declude 1.76i30 H2 with
Declude 1.76i30 Declude 1.76i30 H2 with Declude 1.76i30
Well, I was really hoping it would have been a Declude problem
] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists)
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
Scott, since my own server only gets about 4000 messages per day, is there
any testing or logging I can do that will help track
Scott, since my own server only gets about 4000 messages per day, is there
any testing or logging I can do that will help track this down?
We've already tracked it down about as far as it can go. IMail's process
that handles the queue run is processing E-mails between the time that they
are
We've already tracked it down about as far as it can go. IMail's process
that handles the queue run is processing E-mails between the time that
they are saved to the hard drive (or unlocked) by the SMTPD process and
the time that Declude is able to re-lock the files.
We are trying to think
?
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 8:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
We've already tracked it down about as far as it can go. IMail's process
that handles the queue run
] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 8:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
We've already tracked it down about as far as it can go. IMail's process
that handles the queue run is processing E-mails between the time
In the mean time, until Ipswitch fixes this, is it safe to assume that the
chance incident of failure can be reduced by some percentage by utilizing
a monstrously overrated processor for a given volume of
mail? -- Processor power up, chance of failure down, perhaps dramatically?
Yes.
The
Scott, I take it you are passing this information on to them? Or do you want
me to forward to them under the incident I have open?
Anyone who is having this problem is welcome to forward the information to
Ipswitch. Ipswitch doesn't have an official line of communication with
developers, and
: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
In the mean time, until Ipswitch fixes this, is it safe to assume that
the chance incident of failure can be reduced by some percentage by
utilizing a monstrously overrated processor
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
In the mean time, until Ipswitch fixes this, is it safe to assume that
the chance incident of failure can
I am not sure about this..
Our server load is quite small... Maximum 2000 emails a day.
Our server is a Compaq quad 550 MHz and about 1.2 GB or RAM.
One just can't expect to need more power for such a small volume of email?
I'm not saying that you should increase the CPU power of the server --
Although this is not the same issue as Declude not getting called, I did want to bring
it to everyones attention. For those of you that Store and Forward to other email
servers, Imail 8.04 is having issues with removing body text from emails on the smtp
rdeliver action to a remote server. I
Keith,
Thanks. I hadn't seen it but I'll be on the lookout now.
George
-Original Message-
From: Keith Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Keith Johnson
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
Message -
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
One more thing, is there a way (Bill) of (1st) comparing the c:\declude.log
for unique IDs to say the virus log
]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
John, yes, this can be done. But, if you are running the latest beta,
nothing will be written to the declude.log file. However, if you are
still
running one of the latest pre-beta interim releases, and still want to
track
this, let
We're still running 7.07 here. We're not seeing any of the problems you're
referring to in this version, so I think the bugs very likely started in the
next major release 7.10, which had problems on our server.
This is getting scary. It looks like there is a serious bug
in IMail v7
and v8
I did some math related to my machine assuming 1/5 of a second window
for this bug to appear, and on 5,000 E-mails a day, and 24 runs of the
queue. I figured that on average, this would only happen once every 360
days. It's actually quite remarkable that this was caught, and I can
see why
Well, I was really hoping it would have been a Declude problem...that
way it probably would have been fixed in days as opposed to requiring me
to get an upgrade to IMail 8 for them to fix the issue.
I'm going to reduce my queue from running every 15 minutes to every hour
just to lessen the
34 matches
Mail list logo
