For the second time in a month I have come
to work to find over 500,000 messages in my proc folder. The cause is decludes
inability to perform dns queries, thus mail backlogs. The reason declude
cannot perform DNS queries is that no outgoing traffic is being permitted on
port 53. The
Will,
If Decludeproc was usurping network resources we should be aware of this
issue. However currently you are the only report of this incident. Please
make sure you are running the latest version of declude 3.0.5.23
Declude has sent out DNS requests and did not recieve responses from the DNS
Now I've been fooled twice, so I guess shame on me. Does anyone have a
suggestion that would help resolve this? In the meantime I will be
writing a script to monitor the number of message in the proc folder and
if it reaches a certain threshold, will restart the decludeproc service.
I really
Thank you for the feedback. There is no firewall between my mail server
and my DNS server. The DNS server is running without issue and resolves
names just fine on all other workstations and servers even when the
issues on my mail server arise. When the issue presents itself, the
mail server
Hello Matt,
Friday, January 13, 2006, 6:43:05 PM, you wrote:
M I suppose that it makes sense to not set WAITFORMAIL to 0, though Harry
M posted this morning that his was set that way and working properly.
M Personally I would be curious to see what happens if you set it back to
M 0 and restarted
Will
I had
the same problem a month or so ago. My issue turned out to be my firewall was
preventing the mail server from going out. I have my DNS servers behind the
firewall also. When this happens declude seems to hang on to some memory and it
slowly consumes resourses. I allowed the mail
I have a customer who wants to receive all emails without having declude
check them for spam.
My question, is can this be done?
And then can it be done so that if a message comes in and it is a message
that contains their email address and several other email address on our
domain, that it
Hi Brian,
Yes, this can be done with the Pro version. You can have per-user configurations. You can't not have Declude scan the mail, but you can set this individual's configuration to ignore all test results and deliver the mail. As far as I know, this shouldn't have any affect on other
We have found that if one of the addresses is whitelisted, then every recipient's address gets whitelisted. This may be unique to SmarterMail/Declude. I don't remember having the problem with IMail, but we haven't used it in over a year.Shayne Hi Brian, Yes, this can be done with the Pro
Can't he go into global.cfg and use
WHITELIST TO receiving_domain
or is that a Pro version thing?
John
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shayne
EmbrySent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:12 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
I have the same configuration as you except I have SmarterMail instead of
IMail. The problem I run into is that sometimes Declude fails to make any IP4R
tests, but SmarterMail catches the spam using the same IP4R tests. I had this
problem with version 2 and version 3. I went through Declude
You can also do
WHITELIST TO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not sure about Standard vs Pro
Goran
Jovanovic
Omega Network Solutions
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Carter
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
1:38 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Irecall that happening with IMail as
well. That is why I was wondering if I did something wrong
before.
Brian
- Original Message -
From: Shayne
Embry
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Whitelisting email
There is a posting on the SmarterTools Forums that discusses the current
SmarterMail 3.0 BETA test.
http://forums.smartertools.com/forums/11870/ShowPost.aspx
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.
I can confirm that.
If a single email address is white listed,
then all of them get white listed.
The
solution was a line like this : BYPASSWHITELIST bypasswhitelist 45 6 0 0
If an
email was over weight 45, AND it also had 6 or more recipients, than it
bypassed the white-listing
What are you using for a hold weight and delete
weight?
Brian
- Original Message -
From: IS -
Systems Eng. (Karl Drugge)
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Whitelisting email
address
I can confirm
that.
I hold at 20, bounce at 40, and delete at
60.
I realize bouncing is bad, but were
government, so I have to be careful about outright deleting email without
notifying someone, somewhere.
Karl Drugge
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Karl,
Getting blacklisted for bouncing spam back to forged addresses would
probably be a lot worse than missing a stray message that shouldn't
have been blocked. This certainly can happen, especially if you get a
lot of zombie generated spam.
It is also of course a big pain dealing with
I would second that. We were blacklisted by SORBS when one of OUR customers
autoresponded to a forged sender, which happended to be a SORBS admin or
tarpit address. We passed the 'fine' of delisting back to the customer as a
salutatory lesson but not before we received many complaints of senders
Believe me, Id love to find a way
to do it, but when I HAVE to receive emails from hideously mis-configured
servers, whack-job citizens, and other municipalities with less then stellar
I.T. staff from any where at any time, not bouncing becomes the worse of
two evils.
As an example, if
Karl,
Why delete or bounce? In the scenario that litigation should dictate that
you can't delete or bounce then having to deal with the huge volume of
junkmail is an option that you must live with.
Can I suggest that rather than reap the whirlwind of customer ire you pass
something back to them
Karl,
What would be best would be to set up a system for the review and
reprocessing of false positives. It would likely also help to add some
external tests such as Sniffer so as to improve your spam blocking and
rely less on single tests that could be contributing to your false
positive
- Original Message -
From: Gary Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SmarterMail BETA test
There is a posting on the SmarterTools Forums that discusses the current
SmarterMail 3.0 BETA test.
23 matches
Mail list logo
