Yuck. My Adaptec 29160 is taking a crap. Come to find out, it is an OEM
resold by a distributor and purchased to build the server it is in by my old
employer, who I got the server from as part of the deal when I started my
business.
What do you think of the LSI 20160? Hardware RAID will not be
Use this link to get the 2 letter abbrevations for the countries you want
to add to your own filter: http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm . Some
folks add the whole list while I've only added the ones I see as a problem.
Just in case it helps...
Attached is the file we use. Adjust it as
Whenever I have to bring my primary dns server down a lot of spam gets
through. It appears that declude is only using one DNS server. Is there a
way for it to use my secondary DNS when the primary is down?
thanks
Harry Vanderzand
inTown Internet Computer Services
11 Belmont Ave. W.
On this same
subject
I want a filter for body
text
Such as BODYFILTER filter
E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt x 0
And I want it to find exact words
Will this filter
work?
BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt
with
BODYFILTER 0 IS sex
BODYFILTER 0 IS sexy
On this same subject
I want a filter for body text
Such as BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt x 0
And I want it to find exact words
Hmmm... you asked this question yesterday, and got several responses -- did
you not get them?
NO I did not my mail server was wacked out. It must have been on crack.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BODY FILTER Question
On
hi,
i
don't it will work. there is nothing like BODYFILTER within a filter. i think
you should try:
BODYFILTER filter
E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt
with
ANYWHERE 0CONTAINS
sex
ANYWHERE 0
CONTAINS
sexy
ANYWHERE 0
CONTAINS
S badword
that
would search for those words in the
My SCSI RAID10 rack has a dedicated channel (if you are referring to
the physical cable connecting the drive to the adapter card) for each
drive in the rack. They don't share cables in high-end systems, either,
especially with SCSI/640. Long before you run into bottlenecks at the
drive cables,
Good morning -
Below is a line from my declude log file. I was able to get the message
ID from my syslog and then went to my declude log file and found this.
Could someone explain to me why this was caught? I don't hold for
weight=0. The other tests are IGNORE so they should not have
Last week I was so
tired of have to look at spam and up date filters. Im pretty feed up with all
this. ( :-) Im venting.
I have a subject filter that doesn't
work
Im sending all
failed mail to a junk email and I found the attached header and want to know why
it would fail the subject
Below is a line from my declude log file. I was able to get the message
ID from my syslog and then went to my declude log file and found this.
Could someone explain to me why this was caught?
It was not caught:
03/25/2004 08:44:52 Qe2520a28017a22f2 Tests failed [weight=0]:
IPNOTINMX=IGNORE
Last week I was so tired of have to look at spam and up date filters. Im
pretty feed up with all this. ( :-) Im venting.
Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there
lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)?
Im sending all failed mail to a junk
Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there
lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)?
No I have not - where do I get it?
The # at the beginning of the line means that it is a comment, so that
test is disabled. I assume that was done after the
Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there
lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)?
No I have not - where do I get it?
http://www.declude.com/junkmail/manual.htm
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The
Scott
Subject: Re: Brochure
X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332)
If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the
text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered.
This is whats on line 332
SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room
-Original
Here is what I do:
Install and run DNS service on the Imail server in CACHE only mode. Put in
multiple forwarders. Configure Imail to use 127.0.0.1 for DNS. You will
never have that problem.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Nicely written.
I use the LSI Logic Megaraid (Formally AMI) Elite SCSI Boards.
I configure it as a Raid1 set for the C: and another Raid1 set for the D:
This allows me to temporarily Fail a drive when I am performing
update/upgrade.
If the update/upgrade goes bad I have complete snapshot of
Subject: Re: Brochure
X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332)
If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the
text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered.
This is whats on line 332
SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room
I would try checking
Ever wonder if anything before the hop that delivered the message to your
server was legit?
Check out this text file attachment, where a spammer's search and replace
didn't quite work. The first instance of the yahoo section worked, and an
extra section leaves his replacement variables... not
You are selling serial ATA short. Also, I'm not sure if you are
mistaking ATA with serial ATA in your reply.
It does turn out that there is some logical speculation that SCSI drive
manufacturers are treating SATA as their economy server/workstation
class, however Western Digital's 10K drive
Kevin,
I'm trying to be constructive when I say this, so don't take it the
wrong way. You probably need to seriously rethink your implementation
if you are not up to date on the RBL's (DNSBL's) and doing things like
adding 30 points for subjects that contain the characters "room". You
In an effort to try and reduce the processing needed for checking mail.
With the new features in Declude to end or skip processing within a
filterfile does it seem better to have.
A) A small number of larger filer files vs a lot of smaller files
B) Doesn't make any significant difference if
I just did a Windows NT update and now all mail is failing the Sniffer
test...any ideas...
Richard Farris
Ethixs Online
1.270.247. Office
1.800.548.3877 Tech Support
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004
Subject: Re: Brochure
X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test
(332)
If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have
the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered.
This is whats on line 332
SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room
I would
DNS problem?
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Help
On that note Scott, any chance that in a future version the actual line of
text caught could be listed in the failure? Like:
Message failed SUBJECTFILTER (332 room)
That's something that we are thinking about adding. The only problem is
that some people may not want the information to appear
(A little late to the party)
No doubt, the initial rollout of SATA was a yawn, and SATA systems including
RAID were regularly trounced by their ATA-133 equivalents. Like IDE, SATA
had growing pains due to rival bodies pulling the standard in too many
directions, but SATA and SATA2 are determined
I think that your sniffer update is corrupt. Do a manual update by
executing the autoSNF.cmd file from a dos prompt and get a fresh download.
In addition if you are trying the new beta version with a persistent
instance, you might consider going back to the original version. The
problem might be
ATA and SATA are best suited for the lower end of the spectrum, while
SCSI and FC are high-end. SATA still doesn't allow drives to
communicate without going through the controller. SATA still doesn't
allow disconnecting a drive mid-spin and replacing it without
interruption of the system.
I had a problem with Sniffer earlier this week that turned out to be a
corrupt update. There was a consistent error in the log for the time period
when that botched update was in place. I've noted since then that several
others have complained of similar issues with their sniffer updates,
although
I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from
aplus.net asking if I needed the domain web site hosted. I was a little
concerned because I don't want them calling my clients as soon as a new
domain is registered.
I assume that they pulled the whois info from newly
Attached is the filter file.
The problem is that it is *not* room -- it is SUBJECT 30 IS rõõm. The
Windows API has problems with 8-bit characters -- the latest beta of
Declude JunkMail addresses this. With previous versions, Windows will
return a match on any subject with r in it.
This is the same company that didn't pull that phishing scam from their
server for 36 hours before Valentines day. They are also the same
company that is refusing to pull a customer of theirs that attacks my
server daily with a crawler that submits POST information to forms in
rapid succession
Todd-
Sounds like your registrar is selling their data.
I've never had such a sales call using either Bulk Register or Network
Solutions
-Dave Doherty
Skywaves, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: Todd Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:11
In that case what registrar do you use Todd? Im with Tucows and never
had such calls either.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Doherty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 March 2004 19:46
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
Todd-
Can anyone help rate the incremental performance boost of having the
page file on a separate drive...I don't figure the server should be
doing much with the page file if it has enough memory and is
dedicated to E-mail processing.
If you're using Web Messaging or Calendaring,
Dave,
I thought that might be the case so I called my rep an enom.com
and she says the Do Not sell, or share info, although she did say that
aplus.net is one of their resellers/customers.
I chose enom.com based on recommendations from people here on the
list but I have never
Who was the registrar?
- Original Message -
From: Todd Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:11 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from
Andrew (and Keith),
First gen SATA was just repackaged ATA with SATA connectors. The
conversion is likely what made the drives slower than their ATA
counterparts. The new drives are native and entering the second
generation. Also, controller cards like those made by Promise are entry
level
Thanks Sandy, dully noted.
I do host accounts, but I'm not pushing that side of my business.
Currently it accounts for only about 1/5 of my E-mail volume, the rest
is gatewayed and growing. I'm not sure though if I want to move it to
the new box or not though. I need to do envelope rejection
...ORF+MS SMTP which can't coexist on the same port as IMail, and I
need IMail on port 25 for SMTP AUTH...
While I still don't know why you're running an AUTH-only mailserver on
port 25--rather than having your users use a port that is both less
likely to be spammed directly and
By the way, RAID 10 is not a mirrored set of Raid 5. Just for the sake
of a memory jog on my part, here are all of the RAID levels:
RAID 0: non-redundant striping of drives
RAID 1: drive mirroring (always an even number of drives)
RAID 2: byte striping with moving parity (obsolete)
RAID 3: byte
I'm not about to try to track down 250 people all over the place and
try to get them to walk through changing the port in their mail
clients. I'm a hosting provider, and supporting port 25 is pretty much
a requirement. It's hard enough to get them to check that damn AUTH
box on the server's
Nah, RAID 10's performance will always be twice as fast as RAID 50.
Look at the writes required:
WRITE to RAID 10:
Write data to primary stripe
Copy to backup stripe
WRITE to RAID 50:
Write data to primary stripe
Update the parity on primary stripe
Copy data to secondary stripe
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one
RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0 plus a
slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID 5 with 4 disks would out
perform two striped drives despite the overhead.
There is
I don't know how the formatting was lost on this email, so here's
another try so it makes more sense:
RAID 0: non-redundant striping of drives
RAID 1: drive mirroring (always an even number of drives)
RAID 2: byte striping with moving parity (obsolete)
RAID 3: byte striping with a fixed
Correction...
"RAID 10 will do double a single drive plus a
slight hit for mirroring and for striping"
Matt
Matt wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one
RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0
Hi all,
Is it possible to do the following:
With IMail host some domains and have some domains simply forwarded
(This I know works)
Can I Junkmail but not AV one domain
Another domain AV but not Junkmail
Another domain do both
Another Domain do neither
Thanx
Goran Jovanovic
The
Hi Todd-
Maybe aplus is mining enom's database somehow. Stranger things have
happened.
One other thought: If somebody had access to the root servers, they could
theoretically do a day-to-day comparison of all domains, then do WHOIS
lookups on anything new. It would be a massive amount of data,
Yes, but you need the Pro versions of both Declude JunkMail and Virus to
do so. When you get around to configuring it, there may be some
information buried in the archives, but most definitely read up in the
manuals for per-domain settings, and then post to the list whatever is
unclear. You
Is it possible to do the following:
With IMail host some domains and have some domains simply forwarded
(This I know works)
Can I Junkmail but not AV one domain
Another domain AV but not Junkmail
Another domain do both
Another Domain do neither
Yes. With the Standard version of both products,
The harse ain dead yet.
Well, first thing is all RAID levels create one single volume that
combines the total available drive space. No matter what RAID level you
use, all 10 drives become one big volume, just like the 24-drive RAID 10
that I've got here. You can partition it through Windows
Sorry for being wrong about the Pro thing. Just trying to help.
Doesn't he need JunkMail Pro for gatewaying though? (treated as outbound)
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Is it possible to do the following:
With IMail host some domains and have some domains simply forwarded
(This I know works)
Doesn't he need JunkMail Pro for gatewaying though? (treated as outbound)
That is correct. Declude JunkMail Pro is required for scanning E-mail on
domains that IMail acts as a gateway for.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam
Ok, I'll bury this for the sake of everyone else on this list (though I
though the full discussion wouldn't hurt since the topic comes up in
brief often so I kept it here).
Basically you are saying throw 4 disks into a span and mirror the span
(8 drives total, one disk seen by the system, and
Title: Enchancment suggestion
I was reading another thread that digressed into the topic about the difficulty of keeping up with the latest .cfg file while maintaining the mail administrators customized .cfg
I would like to suggest that perhaps a different approach to managing the .cfg
Scott,
Excuse me for yacking up a storm, but I do have something totally on
topic that I came across recently. The headers below show a message
that missed hitting on some DNSBL's. I'm using a bit of a trick here in
that both DSBL and XBL are defined twice, once with (DYNA) appended so
that
Matt, I agree with you. I am now
confused, as I though it was better to separate physical Spans/Sets/groups by
task, not logical partitions on one span/set/group by task.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Title: Enchancment suggestion
I
do that type of thing with separate files for the different sections of the
config files. I then update the section I need to, and then run the batch file
which uses echo.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
The message came from a last hop that should have tripped all 4 of these
tests, but for some reason it missed both (DYNA) tests. The only thing
that I can come up with is some bug related to the second hop which has a
reserved IP forged in the headers (along with my domain forged). This
I was reading another thread that digressed into the topic about the
difficulty of keeping up with the latest .cfg file while maintaining the
mail administrator s customized .cfg
I would like to suggest that perhaps a different approach to managing the
.cfg files could be implemented. It
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Actually, the issue here is:
X-MailPure: SMTP Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Declude JunkMail is assuming that this is a local sender, and
therefore skipping the test (since DYNA/DUL tests should not be
applied to local users).
This of course brings up another question: Is
Matt, I agree with you. I am now confused, as I though it was better
to separate physical Spans/Sets/groups by task, not logical
partitions on one span/set/group by task.
When you create separate RAID arrays, these are presented to the OS as
separate physical disks, so you are
I know that Im coming into this
late and Im a little confused about much of this discussion. I dont see how its
possible to get better performance by aggregating all of the disks and then
partitioning them out. This will
still create contention when more than one partition is needed
While we're working on config files, how about per-domain virus configs?
hint, hint...grin
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Enchancment suggestion
I was
Another good example is when you setup a domain controller in the
Windows 2000 family, caching is disabled on the physical drives that
contain the active directory. Since you can't get around that (without
applying a few hacks to system files), it's best to put the active
directory on a pair of
I don't see how it's possible to get better performance by
aggregating all of the disks and then partitioning them out.
It's not that you always get better performance by aggregating, it's
that you _don't_ always get better performance the other way, while
always adding
This of course brings up another question: Is there a way for
Declude JunkMail to find out accurately if the sender is really a
local user or not?
If by sender you mean the envelope sender, and not the username used
for SMTP AUTH, I don't see why not.
Actually, that's what
Just for those who plan to run a high-speed Raid:
The todays bottleneck is not only the Raid-Controller, it's more about
shared PCI-bus (LAN and RAID Controller) which is normally a PCI-33 Bus:
PCI-33
133MB/s burst rate on 32bit/33MHz PCI bus
(32bit x 33Mhz=105600bit/s, divided by 8 =
Actually, that's what Declude JunkMail currently does. This lets
Declude JunkMail know whether the envelope sender is a local address
or not.
We can automatically dump messages from nonexistent local users? I
guess I feel kind of dumb after my rant, then, since I didn't know
there
Actually, that's what Declude JunkMail currently does. This lets
Declude JunkMail know whether the envelope sender is a local address
or not.
We can automatically dump messages from nonexistent local users? I
guess I feel kind of dumb after my rant, then, since I didn't know
there
...which is normally a PCI-33 Bus...
I don't know why you'd say that: all of the servers we're building now
are PCI-X, with multiple buses at that.
Good points for anybody using an old chassis, of course.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
No, that can't be done.
Didn't think so. :)
So, like I was saying, when determining whether a local sender is
allowed to relay (or is a preferred sender, including relay and
delivery), central to that is determining whether the sender even
exists. By the logic of just
IMail 8 and WHITELIST AUTH, along with whitelisting your own IP space
solves a lot of potential problems. I think this is what you are
talking about, or at least that seems to be the limit of what is
possible with pure automation in this environment.
Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
74 matches
Mail list logo
