Hi:
Two suggestions:
a) Try the Release Notes link, it is still a 404 (bad link)!
b) The list of 4.0.8. topics deserves a chapter on Filters and its various
commands.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
---
This E-mail came
Hi,
Can anyone confirm that the 'END' statement is functioning properly. I've
been noticing/suspecting that certain test combinations had much too little
weights and I finally have time to debug that.
This is the entry in the GLOBAL.CFG
CONTENT filter D:\IMail\Declude\CONTENTfilter.txt x
The END function means END the filter and do not add any of the points for
that filter. If the END condition is met it is as if the filter never ran.
David B
www.declude.com
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006
Hi,
Behavior confirmed.
Now, is this MY misunderstanding (then I've had it wrong all the time) or is
this a huge production-stopper bug:
11/17/2006 09:54:36.486 qcd1d01a448c8.smd Filter CONTENT: Not skipping
E-mail due to current weight of 15.
11/17/2006 09:54:36.486
Can we request a STOP function that woul dstop the filter and exit with the
current weight?
- Original Message -
From: David Barker
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter 'END' statement in 4.3.14
Wow - really? When was that changed? I know that the filter test itself
did not show as failed, but the WEIGHT always carried over!
Take a look at Scott's reply when this feature was implemented and the
weight-result of the END was being discussed:
Andy,
The post says it's actually set up right now so that:
[1] the E-mail will stop processing,
[2] the test will *not* fail (this may change -- I'm not sure why it was set
up that way), and
[3] the weight will be exactly what it should have been when END was
reached.
Which means that Scott
me too.
I thought the purpose of the end function was so that if the email reaches a
certain weight, like 50, declude drops any further tests, thus saving
precious CPU.
Kindest Regards
Craig Edmonds
123 Marbella Internet
W: www.123marbella.com http://www.123marbella.com/
E : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Darn - I got burned.
Some interims release in 2004 changed the END behavior - where it stopped
carrying over the weight:
http://www.mail-archive.com/declude.junkmail@declude.com/msg20850.html
This behavior makes NO sense at all. But now that I've upgraded Imail and
Declude there's no way going
Hi Craig,
no actually, that you CAN accomplish with the
SKIPIFWEIGHT 20
MAXWEIGHT 9
directives at the beginning of the filter.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
The purpose of the END function was so that you could make some portion of a
filter conditional.
It was not meant to be a start of filter directive, it was meant to be
usable anywhere in the filter...
In fact, in the 2003 post Scott was musing that he might change the fact
that it's not
I'd really like to get into Bayesian filtering. Declude / Message Sniffer /
invURIBL just aren't catching enough for me.
...are there any plans to include it in the Declude product?
...any third-party products available?
I suppose I could do it with a gateway concept like PirateFish or
Nope, never was that way. You want to use MAXWEIGHT for that.
John T
eServices For You
Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
END still works the way Scott intended it to work, ENDs the filter at that
point with no fail.
No need to add STOP.
John T
eServices For You
Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Was never changed. Look at the directives. END means end the filter. What
you should have been using is MAXWEIGHT at the top, or STOPATFIRSTHIT.
John T
eServices For You
Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
Just because it's the way the Scott wanted it, doesn't mean there isn't room
for improvement.
Especially when he changed the functionality of it mid-stream.
I'd still like the STOP option.
- Original Message -
From: John T (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
The END functionality was changed over a year ago. (I couldn't get to the
release notes to check when)
When I first started using end, it would end the filter and return the current
weight of the filter.
- Original Message -
From: John T (Lists)
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Have you looked at the Commtouch ZEROHOUR add in. It has done wonders for us.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Michael Cummins
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:22 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject:
Sadly, no. I think that I would be considered an ISP, I manage about 250
domains or so. I saw a warning on the DECLUDE site about that, so I never
really looked any further.
-- Michael Cummins
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin
Hi John,
Was never changed.
Please read the URL I posted:
http://www.mail-archive.com/declude.junkmail@declude.com/msg14009.html
As you can tell, ORIGINALLY it did return the weight. He was thinking of it
even FAILING the test (if there was a weight).
What you should have been using is
No need to add STOP.
Cool, then please educate me on how do you do this in a single filter:
SKIPIFWEIGHT 20
MAXWEIGHT 3
#these weights will be always be added (if contains is true)
TESTSFAILED 1 CONTAINS test1
TESTSFAILED 1 CONTAINS test2
# do not add more weight if test3
That link only shows that Scott was thinking of changing it from 0 weight to
a fail which would have added the weight. That explains his point 3 in that
what ever the weight of the message was before the test will remain.
Remember, to add weight, the test must FAIL. He stated it did not FAIL and
Hi John,
you read it that way?
It's actually set up right now so that
[1] the E-mail will stop processing,
[2] the test will *not* fail (this may change -- I'm not sure why it was set
up that way), and
[3] the weight will be exactly what it should have been when END was
reached.
If I read
Why the requirement of single filter?
Clarity? It's easier for me to follow a logic, if it's enclosed in a SINGLE
source document (= filter).
If the logical is spread over multiple source documents, I have to first
scour the Global.CFG to see which filters are active, then inspect each one
Well that sucks, I wonder when they are going to get that issue ironed out.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Michael Cummins
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:30 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE:
Kevin
The next release expected to come out for Declude Security Suite includes an
improved CommTouch Engine, you are going to like it..
Chris Asaro
Technical Support Engineer
Declude
Your Email security is our business
866.332.5833 toll free
978.499.2933 office
978.477.8930 e-fax
[EMAIL
No plans to include Bayesian filtering, if you are still getting too much
spam I am pretty sure it is configuration related.
David B
www.declude.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
Cummins
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:22 AM
Any filter that I do not have as active is moved to \declude\filters\notused
from \declude\filtes so that my filters folder only contains filters that I
am currently using.
In your example, you are putting the IF statement after the THEN statement.
I am not a programmer, but IF (the test of
Andy,
Using 'combo' filters is the way to go here. It does work, and while
extra functionality would ease such things, I have always been required
to work within the framework and as a result I use many sets of combo
filters to do exactly what you were trying to do here in one file.
It is
Hi John:
What is the logic of the second part anyways, to add weight for test4 and
test5 IF test1 and test2 failed?
If you have several blacklists of the same family (e.g., multiple open-relay
filters, or multiple open-proxy filters) I like to group them together. I
give a big weight to the
OK, I understand that better but you will always be better off grouping each
intent into a different combo filter. Then, you can even have a combo filter
dependent upon another combo filter by why of order of list and including
the name of the combo filter as an IF statement in the next one.
I'm familiar with MAXWEIGHT and I'm using it.
It doesn't address this particular application.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T
(Lists)
Andy,
Taking your original filter, this is what you would do (note the
NOTCONTAINS line in the second filter):
# ADD-WEIGHT
TESTSFAILED 7 CONTAINS SNIFFER
TESTSFAILED 1 CONTAINS SNIFFER-SCAMS
TESTSFAILED 1 CONTAINS SNIFFER-PORN
TESTSFAILED 2 CONTAINS SNIFFER-MALWARE
Yes, thanks Matt. Obviously, that's how I worked around it when I first
notice this issue this morning (to two filters with proper placement in the
Global.cfg.)
For simplicity of maintenance and for easier comprehension down the road, I
still hope that a STOP directive will be added so that this
...any third-party products available?
Likely the easiest way to integrate a well-regarded and
widely-implemented Bayesian system is to fork standalone SpamAssassin
processes from Declude, running them against an SA ruleset that only
has Bayes rules active.
For higher
35 matches
Mail list logo
