Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing problem OR needed rather than AND.

2004-11-16 Thread Matt
We've been calling it a 'combo' filter. You need to set up two filters, one that is non-scoring that pre-qualifies the ALLRECIPS, and the second that only runs if the first filter is tripped. In your first filter, do the following: ALLRECIPS 0 CONTAINS @domain1.com ALLRECIPS 0

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing

2003-07-28 Thread Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 1:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing - Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing

2003-07-28 Thread Kevin Bilbee
- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing - Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing

2003-07-28 Thread Bill Landry
- Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:24 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing I would realy like to have a filter that stops on first match. This is the line from my log analyzer for the last 7

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing

2003-07-28 Thread Kevin Bilbee
Scott, What do you think? Kevin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing - Original Message - From: Kevin

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing time.

2002-12-12 Thread John Tolmachoff
Or, in other words, Was the filtering written in a way that the performance could easily be improved?. Ah, yes. Given the way it is currently set up, it probably could be improved a bit. However, from what I've heard, it is much more efficient than the IMail filters. And, we haven't

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing time.

2002-12-11 Thread R. Scott Perry
While do some testing with Junkmail in DEBUG mode, I noticed about 3 lines for each filter line in a filter test. How effective is Declude in doing say a 50 line filter test as compared to a program that is doing a filter test of the same configuration? If you are using the debug mode, it

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing time.

2002-12-11 Thread John Tolmachoff
If you are using the debug mode, it will be very ineffective. Not in debug mode, but general. I only noticed it in debug. John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA IT Manager, Network Engineer RelianceSoft, Inc. Fullerton, CA 92835 www.reliancesoft.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter processing time.

2002-12-11 Thread Sanford Whiteman
John, How effective is Declude in doing say a 50 line filter test as compared to a program that is doing a filter test of the same configuration? A little vague, no? How good is IMail at SMTP deliveries, compared to my proprietary MTA? -Sandy --- [This E-mail was scanned

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter Processing

2002-09-17 Thread R. Scott Perry
I have two questions regarding filter processing. 1. If there are multiple filters listed in the global.cfg are they processed in the order they're listed? Yes. 2. If there is a match on an item in a filter list does processing continue against that list? Yes, so if the weight of each

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter Processing

2002-09-17 Thread George Kulman
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter Processing I have two questions regarding filter processing. 1. If there are multiple filters listed in the global.cfg are they processed