Apparently I missing something bloody obvious, but with 2.0 running it seems
like my delete action doesn't work as expected any more.
Running the latest 2.x release downloaded last night.
--Global Config--
WEIGHT20weight x x 20 0
WEIGHT30weight
Fritz,
We've experienced the same problem as you and for us, it was narrowed down
to the catchall account in Imail.
If you have a catchall account in the Imail setup, Declude will not work
correctly.
After many emails to Declude about this, they confirmed to me this IS a
problem and one of not a
What exactly is the problem with the catchall account, and when is a fix
expected?
We haven't yet upgraded to 2.0 because of the periodic mention of problems
with it on this list, but would like to as soon as all known issues are
resolved. We don't have many nobody aliases, but we haven't been
I should confirm my post... By the catchall account, I'm referring to the
Copy All Mail enabled setting in IMAIL.
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:04 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
I've run into this problem too. My solution was to setup another delete
test two points lower than your original delete test. So with a WEIGHT30
test, setup a WEIGHT28 test with the action of delete. I don't know how
reliable it is, but it worked for me.
Jason
- Original Message -
Nope, not using that either.
Fritz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:11 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 2 and DELETE
I should confirm my post... By the
One of the best things to try is to stop using WEIGHT and use WEIGHTRANGE.
This is much more precise in action handling.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John,
If all I want to do is:
WEIGHT10 ATTACH
WEIGHT40 DELETE
Are you suggesting that I change that to:
WEIGHT1039 ATTACH
WEIGHT40DELETE
Where WEIGHT1039 is a weightrange and the rest are weights.
If so why is your suggestion more precise?
Goran Jovanovic
The LAN
I had a similar problem with 2.0.4, in my case I had multiple DELETE actions
like the following:
WEIGHT20 HOLD
WEIGHT25 DELETE
WEIGHT30 DELETE
The solution that worked in my case was to remove (simply comment out) the
extra DELETE
WEIGHT20 HOLD
WEIGHT25 DELETE
#WEIGHT30 DELETE
I don't know if
Goran,
It's more precise because when you have two WEIGHTS that overlap Declude
will evaluate the actions of both and pick the one with the highest
programmed action. When you use the weight range option than there is no
conflict of actions since your weight ranges would not conflict.
At 02:54 PM 3/1/2005 +0100, Erik wrote:
After many emails to Declude about this, they confirmed to me this IS a
problem and one of not a high priority to fix. We've reverted back to 1.82
until it's fixed.
We have as well. I just tried 2.05 yesterday and spent 1 1/2 hours fixing
stuff this
I put in the 2.0.5 upgrade on the weekend and so far have no seen any
problems. I did the manual install and copied the declude.exe over, did
the -diags and then started the SMTP service.
I have looked in the logs but see nothing unusual. What type of problems
did you spend time fixing?
With
Kyle,
From the system documentation written by Scott Perry.
IGNORE This action does not do anything (aside from log that the E-mail
failed the test). Same as the LOG action.
LOG This action does not do anything (aside from log that the E-mail
failed the test). Same as the IGNORE
The latest version of Declude is indeed working very well.
As in anything else in life, there is no such thing as perfect.
This bug is apparently as the result of customer requests, in that Declude
customers were requesting multiple actions and different actions for
different users.
Remember
We have deployed 2.0.5 as well using the manual. We have had it running for
well over a week now and have not seen any issues at all.
Darrell
Goran Jovanovic writes:
I put in the 2.0.5 upgrade on the weekend and so far have no seen any
problems. I did the manual install and copied the
How have your logs been Darrell?
When I was running it (I've since gone back to 1.82) I noticed lots more log
corruption
- Original Message -
From: Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: Re:
This is how you would setup a weight range with the last one being a weight
to place an action on all emails with a weight over that weight.
SPAM-LOWweightrange x x 8 13
SPAM-MEDweightrange x x 14 24
SPAM-HIGH weight x
At 11:20 AM 3/1/2005 -0500, Goran Jovanovic wrote:
I put in the 2.0.5 upgrade on the weekend and so far have no seen any
problems. I did the manual install and copied the declude.exe over, did
the -diags and then started the SMTP service.
I have looked in the logs but see nothing unusual. What
Scott,
I have not seen too much log corruption yet. In fact watching the logs
scroll by it seems to be better than what we seen under earlier versions.
Specially since the logs are not interleaved (I like that). We are running
logs in excess of 600MB. I will have a better answer once I
Hi,
Oh, so it's NOT just me.
Yes, there we virtually no corruptions before my upgrade from 1.82 to 2.04 -
now they are plentiful.
Best Regards
Andy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:37 AM
Andy/Scott,
We are running 2.0.5 and I am not sure if that has anything to do with it.
I have always had corruption with the previous versions when the server got
to busy. I just have not seen that with 2.0.5 yet.
Darrell
Andy Schmidt writes:
Hi,
Oh, so it's NOT just me.
Yes, there
Uh, so the WEIGHT text is the problem?
I have noticed from day one, that suddenly really obvious Spam that had
failed countless tests and should have been deleted (with REALLY high
weights) was actually being delivered.
I had mentioned it on the list twice right after I was finally able to
Hi,
Yesterday was actually a good day (here a snippet):
TEST # FAILED Percentage
18:51:5810.01%
SNIF02/28/2005..10.01%
SPA02/28/2005...10.01%
WEIG02/28/2005..10.01%
Sure, I used to get reports that were clean,
If you are moving form IMail to smartermail your declude files will transfer
over with out and issue, you may need to change path settings in your config
files. I have dont this on one live domain that I am testing declude and
smartermail with. Only problem at this point is the declude
I just want to dbl check that declude uses the NS server specified in
the network interface properties box, and not the one in the iMail SMTP
panel, yes?
Can I explicitly set a NS sever for declude in the config?
Robert
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
No issue reported to us regarding Declude software will ever be considered
trivial or unimportant. It is essential that all issues be reported to
Declude Support. A number of comments made recently on these lists refer to
issues never reported to Declude.
It should also be understood that the
From the manual:
6.4 DNS Server
By default, Declude JunkMail uses the same DNS server that {MAILSERVER}
uses. If you want to use a different DNS server, you need a line in the
configuration filestarting with DNS, followed by the IP of your DNS
server. For example, DNS 198.6.1.2.
-Original
Great response to the concerns, David. Much appreciated.
Just to clarify: Other than the logging issue you referred to, are there
any known issues with 2.05? If so, is there a list I can review to
determine if we're ready to upgrade?
Thanks,
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: David
Since we did use the essential means of reporting this problem, we still
got back:
No. Declude Confirm hasn't been changed in a number of years, so it is not
currently a high priority.
-Scott
And:
As for Declude Confirm, I understand that it is a priority for you.
I had the opposite experience. Back at, oh, 1.7x I ran on LOGLEVEL
HIGH, and had lots of log corruption. I had to drop down to MID. The
increase in spam volume made it such that at MID, I had lots of log
corruption again.
With 2.x and the lines being written in a batch, I noticed an immediate
Yesterday's report on my declude logfile showed
=...10.01%
02/28/2005..10.01%
FF156FB0094D05A.10.01%
I00510.01%
There has always been corruption of the logs. What seems to have
changed here is that there is a new log format and the programmed
exceptions in DLanalyzer are no longer able to handle the types of
corruption as seamlessly as in the past.
I haven't seen the new log format, but I would imagine
Hi All,
Hope you don't mind another simple question...
I have a spam message with a weight of 2:
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SNIFFER [2]
The problem with this line was that we have sniffer weighted at 7. So I
went to the Declude JM log and came up with this:
03/01/2005 13:17:46 Qdbca042102961063
I use a variant of Matt's badcountrynorevdns test to punish timeout's from
spam haven countries:
BadCountryREVDNSTimeout.txt:
REVDNS END NOTIS (Timeout)
COUNTRY 50 IS CN
COUNTRY 50 IS KR
COUNTRY 40 IS RU
- Original Message -
From: Imail Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
It's the same log format except that all the
messages for a specific email are grouped together. Well most of the time they
are grouped together.
It does make eyeball parsing of the log easier.
I load the logs into a database daily. With the
1.8x versions, I'll need to code around a new
Could it be the NOLEGITCONTENT test?
- Original Message -
From: Imail Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] question on calculating weights
Hi All,
Hope you don't mind another simple question...
I have
Title: Message
I haven't seen
the new log format
I'm
not aware of any new log format. The FORMAT of the log files stayed the
same (regular "version" specificchanges may apply) on the ORDER
changes.
Meaning: all log lines for aSINGLE messageare now appearing
in one set of lines -
Title: Message
Odd things is that I never get log
corruption in message sniffer. So somebody is writing out logs that don't get
corrupt.
Maybe because he is
running as a "service", thus can serialize the log
output?
Title: Message
I guess this is somewhat rhetorical at this point, but why change the
logs to single lines and not at the same time seek to normalize the
format using the same standards that are used for Web logs or even a
simple comma separated (quoted qualifier) database format?
Matt
Andy
Title: Message
Because it wasn't needed for
Smartermail.
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:54
PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Log
Corruption
I guess this is somewhat rhetorical at this point,
That usually indicates your are having DNS issues. Are you sure your DNS
server is healthy and responding to queries quickly?
Darrell
Imail Admin writes:
Hi All,
We get a fair amount of spam that slips through without triggering anything
(including Sniffer). I notice in the headers for
There has always been corruption of the logs. What seems to have changed
here is that there is a new log format and the programmed exceptions in
DLanalyzer are no longer able to handle the types of corruption as
seamlessly as in the past.
The log format has not changed other than blocking
I though Pete had some locking mechanism built in to prevent overlapping.
Pete?
Darrell
Andy Schmidt writes:
Odd things is that I never get log corruption in message sniffer. So
somebody is writing out logs that don't get corrupt.
Maybe because he is running as a service, thus can
Title: Message
but why change
the logs to single lines and not at the same time seek to normalize the
format
They
were not changed to single lines?
Single
linesof ONE message were grouped together - rather than scattered about.
They are still single lines - just the ORDER of their
I think Pete's still in the bunker with the shields on high.
- Original Message -
From: Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Log Corruption
I though Pete had some locking
That's a good question about the DNS server. When I run the response test
from dnsstuff.com, my DNS servers get graded as A or A-, which would seem to
be OK. Also, the timeouts only seem to occur on spam.
Ben
- Original Message -
From: Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Thanks Scott. Question: I'm not familiar with the NOTIS command; is that
from Version 2 of JM?
Ben
- Original Message -
From: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] timeout test on Spam
I
(Pete isn't here much)
I remember this thread from a long time back. Messsage Sniffer doesn't
take any particular efforts to lock the log file to prevent collisions.
And he agreed that Microsoft Windows had the nasty habit of not always
serializing writeln statements to a text file.
Scott
NOTIS was introduced in 179i16
- Original Message -
From: Imail Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] timeout test on Spam
Thanks Scott. Question: I'm not familiar with the NOTIS command; is that
On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 5:38:54 PM, Darrell wrote:
Dsic I though Pete had some locking mechanism built in to prevent overlapping.
Dsic Pete?
Yes. This is it. (quite a lot of locking actually)
This is a pet peeve of mine so I'm going to go just slightly off topic
- it might help someone
On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 5:48:17 PM, Andrew wrote:
CA (Pete isn't here much)
:-(
I do usually lurk though...
I'll try to post more often...
;-)
_M
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing
I have Kodak EZ Share that allows you to take
pictures with your digital camera and email them out...when I email them to
myself from another computerI never get them unless I tell it to send as
is..if I choose "Best for email" I wont get them. Other customers are telling me
they are not
The first place I would check would be the imail log files. When you find
the mail arriving make sure it does not exceed the max attachment size.
Once you see it was wrote to the spool you can track it through Declude
Virus/Junkmail.
Darrell
Richard Farris writes:
I have Kodak EZ Share
I disagree with the struggling server logic. We saw the log corruption in a
test environment a year ago that had minimal traffic, say a couple thousand
messages a day. It was a dual 1.4GHz processor with 1 GB RAM and 10k RPM
SCSI drives. Load was only about 1-5% during testing.
Darin.
-
On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 7:14:31 PM, Darin wrote:
DC I disagree with the struggling server logic. We saw the log corruption in a
DC test environment a year ago that had minimal traffic, say a couple thousand
DC messages a day. It was a dual 1.4GHz processor with 1 GB RAM and 10k RPM
DC SCSI
Correct. What I was saying I disagreed with was the concept that it only
occurred on struggling servers. This test machine was very lightly loaded
and we saw log corruption.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
56 matches
Mail list logo
