Title: Message
Hi;
It seems like
Junkmail treats these two listings differently.
.SAVINGSENGINE.COM
@MAIL1.SAVINGSENGINE.COM
I have always been
under the impression that the first listing will include the 2nd listing. But it
seems like the postings from this domain is getting through.
It seems like Junkmail treats these two listings differently.
.SAVINGSENGINE.COM
@MAIL1.SAVINGSENGINE.COM
I have always been under the impression that the first listing will
include the 2nd listing. But it seems like the postings from this domain
is getting through.
Header from Declude:
I resent an email and declude has now gone somewhat wacky. The imail server
was acting loaded, so I checked the task man and there are 6 or 8 instances
of declude running - taking up all of the cpu cycles. Ther are also about
15-20 .~md and .smd files in the spool dir and three or 4 .vir
These are not legit -- you can check the IP address that they come from
(doing a reverse DNS lookup or IPWHOIS) -- if the reverse DNS or IPWHOIS do
not clearly indicate that it is from Spamcop, it isn't.
-Scott
At 09:42 AM 11/12/2002, you wrote:
I got 3 mails this morning
Thanks Scott, ok, dope slap me please. I should've thought of that. And
I've spent alot of time on that dnsstuff.com page too... LOL
Paul
These are not legit -- you can check the IP address that they come from
(doing a reverse DNS lookup or IPWHOIS) -- if the reverse DNS or IPWHOIS
do
The original install of Declude includes a line in global.cfg that
states WHITELIST HABEAS. I assume I can remark this out since we are
receiving warnings in the log files called Invalid Whitelist test
Habeas. Thanks for the input.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
The original install of Declude includes a line in global.cfg that
states WHITELIST HABEAS. I assume I can remark this out since we are
receiving warnings in the log files called Invalid Whitelist test
Habeas. Thanks for the input.
Yes, you can comment out the WHITELIST HABEAS line (by
Scott,
Thanks for the reply. Speaking of the beta version - is it best
to run the beta vs the 1.60. I guess we shy on the conservative side so
at first glance the 1.60 was a good fit, however, if the 1.62 version is
better (i.e. more features, bug fixes), and has proven stable, we may
Thanks for the reply. Speaking of the beta version - is it best
to run the beta vs the 1.60. I guess we shy on the conservative side so
at first glance the 1.60 was a good fit, however, if the 1.62 version is
better (i.e. more features, bug fixes), and has proven stable, we may
give it
I resent an email and declude has now gone somewhat wacky. The
imail server
was acting loaded, so I checked the task man and there are 6 or
8 instances
of declude running - taking up all of the cpu cycles. Ther are
also about
15-20 .~md and .smd files in the spool dir and three or 4 .vir
The test email that I sent only had one recipient. The problem started when
I sent the test message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to test the filter setup.
There was not a valid imail account or alias for muji. I waited a minute for
it to process and then checked the declude logs to see what had
We recieved a few of these messages as well. There is some info on
Spamcop's site about it.
http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/124.html
Dustin
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:horizons;declude.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Hi John,
We do not have the docs finished yet, but the program is available if you
would care to test it. There is a 'Declude style' configuration file and it is
completely commented so it is easy to use without the docs.
At this point we are still open to suggestions and comments. We hope to
I currently give a weight of 16 to SpamCop, forcing the message to either
fail 2 minor tests or one other major test. (Subject modification 15-19,
hold at 20.)
Here is what Declude has to say about OSSRC:
Osirusoft's Confirmed Spam Source list. These are sites that continually
spam and have been
Ron,
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 you wrote:
RH I currently Hold a lot of e-mail failing a lot of the open relay tests.
The only two tests I hold directly are ORDB and SNIFFER. ORDB is
about 99% for me and SNIFFER is less but still very high. Mainly
SNIFFER fails on lists and
Brian,
I would like to test it as well!
Patrick Childers
Network Administrator
Hussey, Gay, Bell DeYoung Inc.
329 Commercial Drive
Savannah, GA 31406
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:Declude.JunkMail-owner;declude.com]On Behalf Of Brian Milburn
Ok, it is being sent to your email address.
On 11/12/02 12:44pm you wrote...
Brian,
I would like to test it as well!
Patrick Childers
Network Administrator
Hussey, Gay, Bell DeYoung Inc.
329 Commercial Drive
Savannah, GA 31406
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Yes, I would be willing to try it.
Although we are a small company, and therefore our traffic is less and may
not make as good of a test bed.
On the other hand, if something goes wrong, it will not effect as much.
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
I have given this test a weight of 2. My thinking is that although they are
known to produce SPAM, they have not been shown very in-effective in Scott's
monthly log.
Darn keyboard virus. Let me try that again.
...they have not been shown to be very effective in...
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT
Brian,
Us too please!! We catch a lot now but it still seems like the
particularly nasty ones still get through. Seems like nobody complained
before we started filtering
Fritz
Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
Network Administrator
Citizens Internet Services
http://www.wpa.net
-Original
I've seen several emails come thru referencing 3rd party hold
readers/reviewers. Does anyone have a pref on one. Also, I have gotten
some feedback from Scott (much apprec.) on what he sees as a initial
setup for guarding against spam. I would like to see what options
others have unlocked or
I'd love to give your program a try.
Written between the lines of the post I first started this thread with: I
have a nagging problem with porn and I have been charged with cleaning it
up. My challenge is that the stuff I'm seeing is stuff that my local users
are sharing among themselves, so I'm
I like Spam Review, and I use it every single day.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:Declude.JunkMail-owner;declude.com]On Behalf Of Keith Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2002 1:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] 3rd Party Hold Readers
I've seen
My challenge is that the stuff I'm seeing is stuff that my local users
are sharing among themselves, so I'm going to need to develop something
a little more stern than standard spam filtering.
If you're a private company, which it appears that you are, how about
starting with an Acceptable Use
Thanks for the aid(Realizing this is a loaded question)
Glad Len is not on here. He would pull the trigger. :))
Basically, I give a heavy weight to the big tests like SpamCop and the
junkmail domain list.
I give a medium weight to Badheaders/Spamheaders, routing, and such.
I hold on my
I am a private company, we have an Acceptable Use Policy, I have the backing
of Upper Management, I've sent hate mail to our users warning them of dire
consequences, I understand the issue and the steps required to deal with it.
What I'm working on now is enforcement. This isn't Johnny Cochran,
I'm moving this discussion into the Declude forum, where it belongs...
Markus Gufler stated:
I'm not sure if this is per-user-.self-config-frontend is really needed
for declude.
Our users are very happy when we try to find a good and reliable
configuration and keep them up to date. (spammers
I have a customer that uses EzMTS, a Windows freeware mailserver. When ever
a message goes through that server and Declude all the Xheaders added by
Declude show up in the body of the mail. Can I assure him that it's his
problem (EzMTS).
David
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude
I have a customer that uses EzMTS, a Windows freeware mailserver. When ever
a message goes through that server and Declude all the Xheaders added by
Declude show up in the body of the mail. Can I assure him that it's his
problem (EzMTS).
That's actually not a problem with EzMTS -- EzMTS does
That is exactly what we do... But we don't delete weight20, we route
it to a mail box, that way if a customer calls, we can retrieve the
email, look at all the test it failed, if it needs whitelisted, we can
do that, and then forward the message on... We've had 0 problems with
it!! -Russ
If we filter what we know is junk, somebody in upper management will get
upset because they missed their latest 'junk' mail. That is why we wanted a
per-user type of interface...so that those people can manage their own junk.
Actually, what you may want to try is the attach function, which
Thanks, that is actually the avenue that they were taking. They got the
messages to appear with the changed headers and subject fields, but they
apparently were having issues where those filters were affecting either
people's email accounts that weren't on the list yet, they were getting each
... they apparently were having issues where those filters were affecting
either
people's email accounts that weren't on the list yet, they were getting each
others messages for point values...i.e., a rule set for person 'A' would
affect person 'B'.
What is really happening here isn't that one
You're going to force me into looking into this situation closer, aren't
you? I've been tempted...just trying to finish up a couple of other things
before I do that.
Yes. :))
Help is here.
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
Fullerton, CA 92835
As I recall, if a message is addressed to multiple
recipients, JunkMail uses the most restrictive settings it finds. If one
of the recipients is set up for JunkMail and the others aren't, then that user's
filtering applies to ALL of them.
- Original Message -
From:
Tom
From what I overheard 'A' telling 'B' this morning, he sent the message from
his account, so it went fro 'A' to 'B'. He purposely added text to the
email body that he knew would have been caught by his rules, but not those
of person 'B'. Do messages sent also go through the filter? Of course, I
From what I overheard 'A' telling 'B' this morning, he sent the message from
his account, so it went fro 'A' to 'B'. He purposely added text to the
email body that he knew would have been caught by his rules, but not those
of person 'B'.
Note that Declude JunkMail doesn't have any per-user
Scott,
If you will recall, I contacted you a while back when I was working on
CYBERsitter NoXMail and I was having problems with Declude locking the spool
file while processing it.
You sent me a version that had this fixed. MUCH to my embarrassment, I sent
out some beta copies of NoXMail to
If you will recall, I contacted you a while back when I was working on
CYBERsitter NoXMail and I was having problems with Declude locking the spool
file while processing it.
You sent me a version that had this fixed. MUCH to my embarrassment, I sent
out some beta copies of NoXMail to about
I've had two engineers here spending alot of time with this product.
They are both considerably intelligent and experienced, yet they have
had nothing but trouble. We've played with a per-user package called
IHateSpam before we tried the declude solution. It wass very User
friendly and
I'm not asking for help, just offering an opinion...
Using Declude with one CFG file and multiple Domains one
could set up a default JNK/Action file with weight tests
as follows:
CFG:
WEIGHT1 weightrange x x 10 19
In an earlier thread there was a mention about Yahoo and OSSOFT.
I have found OSSOFT to be unreliable and now I only use the
following companies to help stop spam.
OSSRC ip4rrelays.osirusoft.com127.0.0.4 16
0
SPAMCOP ip4rbl.spamcop.net
A while ago there was a mention about bouncing mail back to
spammers, don't bother unless you know where the mail is
truly coming from. Using weight with Bounce is a bad
idea, you are better off bouncing mail back to those who
send the mass mailing and/or do exist and have sent you
unsolicited
The test email that I sent only had one recipient. The problem started when
I sent the test message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to test the filter setup.
There was not a valid imail account or alias for muji. I waited a minute for
it to process and then checked the declude logs to see what had
50% effective
List of spammers caught by the Fromfile:
---
found: 2 ID-20021112-001525 @yite.com.ar
found: 4 ID-20021112-000225 .gsjs.com
found: 7 ID-20021112-000324 .ms83.com
found: 26 ID-20021112
45 matches
Mail list logo
