is there a possibility to test for (bogus) comments with
Declude.Junkmail (I'm using the lite version)? Something like
As I know JM has a COMMENTS test from v1.67beta on.
Markus
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from
I usually only see this when it is caught in my spam folder. Does this
type of warning ever appear in legit mail?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a
mail reader or gateway that understands
how to properly handle
Hi,
is there a possibility to test for (bogus) comments with
Declude.Junkmail (I'm using the lite version)? Something like
As I know JM has a COMMENTS test from v1.67beta on.
Is it an undocumented feature? I can't find anything in the manual... How do
I setup this?
Best wishes
Michael
I usually only see this when it is caught in my spam folder. Does this
type of warning ever appear in legit mail?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a
mail reader or gateway that understands
how to properly handle MIME
Same here,
When is the new manual going to be put out Scott?
Darryl Koster
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
interactiveaustria
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 7:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AW: [Declude.JunkMail] Bogus comments
When is the new manual going to be put out Scott?
First, I should point out that there is no new manual (the manual is
constantly evolving; we don't just come out with one new manual for each
new release).
The latest config files and manual (which were just recently updated) do
include the
Michael,
You would set this up like any of your other non RBL tests
COMMENTS comments 5 x 3 0
The first number is the number of comments. As with all of the other tests
the 3 is the weight assigned.
With having it set at five comments only a small handful of messages fail
this test for
Not to mention I have never seen a false positive up to this point that
actually failed the comments test so I beleive 5 is a safe number, but I
would love to hear others settings.
FWIW, we haven't heard of a single false positive even at 1. While a fair
amount of legitimate bulk HTML E-mail
Not quite right. Normal HTML does often contain comments, usually
generated automatically as a deubgging aid for the developer. Normal
HTML does not usually contain comments that break up words like fr !--
catch me if you can -- ee (note that I added a space after fr and
before ee to be sure
BTW, thanks to Andrew's prodding, I tested that that entry is for Exchange
2000 Post SP3 rollup OWA.
I am trying to find out about Exchange 2003.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since Declude has nothing to do with messages being received or sent from
the server, or POP3 service and such, how could disabling Declude affect
this?
What version of Declude.exe are you using?
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
Attachments shouldn't trigger the BASE64 test, only inline encoded
text/HTML. Maybe AOL isn't tagging their attachments correctly and
that's the problem? I have messages from their users that are in plain
text.
I'm working on a simple filter to positive weight attachments that
aren't text,
I have no idea how it has any effect, but I've enabled and disabled Declude
a dozen times with the same result. We're using 1.75.
Tomorrow morning I'm going to spend a couple of hours with the server
offline looking deeper into the problem. It's difficult to really get down
to the problem when
Sorry for asking here but I can't find anything on this. I'm seeing a lot
of these errors in my Imail log file.
20030912 005807 127.0.0.1 SMTP (2348) MX connect fail 66.54.211.51
Anyone ever come across this error?
TIA
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http
I haven't seen any spam. Walmart uses this for their newsletters, don't know
about others. We negative weight this already.
Brian
On 09/12/03 10:10am you wrote...
When ever I see this in the header, it is associated with a legit
newsletter.
Any one see the same, or see spam with this header?
Do you this in addition to or in replace of the tested listed earlier.
GibberishSub.txt
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Gibberish body detector + inline Base64
I've
Frederick Samarelli wrote:
Do you this in addition to or in replace of the tested listed earlier.
It's completely separate from the GIBBERSUB filter. I updated the list
of keywords in the subject filter so that it is the same as the one I
just posted after finding FP's on the acronym 'QE'EG
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Gibberish body detector + inline Base64
Frederick Samarelli wrote:
Do you this in addition to or in replace of the tested
Scott,
If you whitelist in the Global.cfg file, does that prevent the other
tests from being run on that message?
Thanks,
Matt
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just
I cannot figure out why messages from this particular participant on the
SpamAssassin e-mail distribution list does not show any Declude JunkMail
header entries. Here is the log info and headers for one of these messages:
==
IMail receive log entry:
M:\grep 04FF0068
I believe all tests are still run, just no action taken.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble
Sent: Friday, September
Note the conspicuously missing Declude headers. Any idea what would be
causing Declude to not add it's headers to this persons messages? Scott,
if
you would like me to run debug logging, I can, but who know how long
before
this person posts to the list again.
Do you have Imgate striping
I cannot figure out why messages from this particular participant on the
SpamAssassin e-mail distribution list does not show any Declude JunkMail
header entries. Here is the log info and headers for one of these messages:
This is very odd. Have you checked the source of the E-mail, to see if
No, Postfix sits in front of the IMail server. I see the Declude headers on
all other messages, and most other messages to the SpamAssassin list,
although I did just find another on from a different poster to the list that
also did not have any Declude headers.
For example, here are the headers
Scott, I deleted the other message, but I forwarded you a copy of another
message from the same poster, as an attachment (so the entire message,
including headers, are intact), to your personal e-mail address in case you
wanted to review it.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry
Thanks Josh. I'm sure there are more exceptions to come as well, but
hopefully only a handful. BTW, I did whitelist declude.com, so no
problems here with reading anything just as long as Scott doesn't start
using these filters with a high score :) Your message also
definitively answered the
Someone pointed me to a problem with PGP that needs to be fixed with
this filter, and there are still some other issues as well. This is
still a filter in progress.
I have another false positive that I just caught from an inline image
that didn't trip the BASE64 filter or contain the
Matt,
How well does this work.
BODY -5 CONTAINS attachment
I noticed it did not counter weight a photo attachment.
Fred
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Gibberish
Fred,
That was referenced in my last post. I'm trying to figure out the best
counterweight method. That should only happen with an inline attached
file (images can be sent both ways). Someone gave me a good
recommendation for a fix and I'm researching it. There's other FP's
that while
On Sep 12, 2003, at 10:15 PM, Frederick Samarelli wrote:
Matt,
How well does this work.
BODY -5 CONTAINS attachment
I noticed it did not counter weight a photo attachment.
I think what would help this filter and others like it would be if
Scott could make it so you could have a line in a
30 matches
Mail list logo
