So that makes it unusable for dial up connections.
Still can be usefull for our wireless clients, those are
assigned fixed IPs. But we will have to hijack white list
all the Dial up IPs, correct ?
No it still works for dialups - We have dynamic static users and have
not had this problem.
What versions of IMail/Declude JunkMail does the COPYFILE option work with?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] COPYFILE
I am having
What versions of IMail/Declude JunkMail does the COPYFILE option work with?
It works with all versions of IMail, and Declude JunkMail v1.79 and higher.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers
since
Which is the correct usage?
WEIGHT20HOLD
WEIGHT20COPYFILE C:\Imail\spool\weight10\
Or simply
WEIGHT20 COPYFILE C:\Imail\spool\weight10\
Thanks,
Lukasz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday,
Which is the correct usage?
WEIGHT20HOLD
WEIGHT20COPYFILE C:\Imail\spool\weight10\
This won't work as expected, because you can't have multiple actions for a
single test (see the Multiple actions per test section of the manual at
http://www.declude.com/junkmail/manual.htm for
Scott,
I was looking through the Dec.log and one of the
messages says
04/06/2004 22:31:23 Q76090ad600e6a9cc Msg failed HELOBOGUS
(Domain hounexs.dataprojections.com has no MX or A records.). Action="">
But when I did a lookup it has a Host Record and a MX
record, but it is
I was looking through the Dec.log and one of the messages says
04/06/2004 22:31:23 Q76090ad600e6a9cc Msg failed HELOBOGUS (Domain
hounexs.dataprojections.com has no MX or A records.). Action=WARN.
But when I did a lookup it has a Host Record and a MX record, but it is
for
Nope. Don't whitelist dial-up IPs, that totally quashes the point of
HiJack, to catch YOUR users sending spam.
I've adjusted the threshold parameters, but I still do have instances where
a dial-up IP gets caught for a high volume of mail (multiple recipients on
those IDIOT mass-forwards of jokes
This one started in the US, bounced off an Italian server, and arrived
here in the US. Why didn't SpamRouting catch this one?
Received: from host148-169.pool8249.interbusiness.it [82.49.169.148] by
lovt.com
(SMTPD32-8.05) id A7BA1160358; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:34:18 -0500
Received: from
This one started in the US, bounced off an Italian server, and arrived
here in the US. Why didn't SpamRouting catch this one? The
%countrychain% variable showed the same per the X-Note below.
Received: from host148-169.pool8249.interbusiness.it [82.49.169.148] by lovt.com
(SMTPD32-8.05) id
I'm still having one problem with the script to detect message sizes.
The %WEIGHT% is supposed to be passed into the script so that it can
decide whether or not to fully run or immediately quit, but I can't get
it to quit. Although this isn't critical for this one script, it is
definitely
The %WEIGHT% is supposed to be passed into the script so that it can
decide whether or not to fully run or immediately quit, but I can't get it
to quit. Although this isn't critical for this one script, it is
definitely the main component of the Sniffer bypassed that I would like to
also put
Just noticed this in the news and didn't see it on this list.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/habeas_spam_lawsuit/
Glad they are doing something about it.
Nathan Fouarge
AmberWave Communications
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
tried this from two different computers.. one being the mail server which
uses my dns server and one that uses an upstream dns server and I get the
same response from both
C:\Documents and Settings\Administratorping 2.0.0.127.bl.spamcop.net
Ping request could not find host
tried this from two different computers.. one being the mail server which
uses my dns server and one that uses an upstream dns server and I get the
same response from both
C:\Documents and Settings\Administratorping 2.0.0.127.bl.spamcop.net
Ping request could not find host
The problem here is that the %WEIGHT% variable isn't calculated
until after all the tests are run.
That's too bad, as that means that the -cw (current weight) and -sw
(skip-if weight) switches in SPAMC32 aren't usable.
Since SKIPIFWEIGHT exists as an internal directive, can you look
Scott,
...and all this time I was banking on this being possible.
Is there another variable available like %CURRENTWEIGHT% that could be
used for this purpose (whatever SKIPIFWEIGHT uses)? I recall Sandy
releasing a SpamD port back in January that included at least the hooks
for this, but I
82.49.169.148 is registered with RIPE. What source does declude use to
determine it is US, German or whatever? Not being argumentative -
curious and so I'll understand . . .
Wednesday, April 7, 2004, 3:50:53 PM, R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one started in the US, bounced off
Scott, I'd like to make the case for moving the:
Last action =
log line from the LOGLEVEL HIGH setting down to the LOGLEVEL MED setting.
If nobody objects, we'll change it.
This will be changed in the next interim release.
-Scott
---
Declude
Is there another variable available like %CURRENTWEIGHT% that could be
used for this purpose (whatever SKIPIFWEIGHT uses)?
There is now an interim 1.79i3 at http://www.declude.com/interim that
changes the %WEIGHT% variable so that it will include the current weight if
it is used before the
82.49.169.148 is registered with RIPE. What source does declude use to
determine it is US, German or whatever? Not being argumentative -
curious and so I'll understand . . .
The ROUTING test doesn't use any source. It just has uses very generic IP
ranges.
The IP-country database, however,
There is now an interim 1.79i3 at http://www.declude.com/interim
that changes the %WEIGHT% variable so that it will include the
current weight if it is used before the total weight is calculated.
Thanks! Now all SPAMC32 features can be used in the real world. :)
--Sandy
There is now an interim 1.79i3 at
WOW!
I have to analyze Matt's and Sanford's messages/spelling/psycology.
How the hell it's possible to have such a fast reaction (8 minutes!!!) for
such a request?
No doubt, support issues are resolved very fast. Also realy important things
like EZIP. This is
Did you send Scott a Christmas card?
:)
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Gufler
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Passing weight to Externalplus test
There is
How the hell it's possible to have such a fast reaction (8
minutes!!!) for such a request?
Ah, but to be fair, SPAMC32 has implemented that feature for a few
months now without matching functionality. :)
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief
the dns server I use on this machine is managed by ATT
it is giving the same response.. which is also the dns server I use as a
forward for my dns server
Bennie
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:10 PM
tried from dns tools
(http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ping.ch?ip=2.0.0.127.bl.spamcop.net) and I
get the following
Can not route to 2.0.0.127.bl.spamcop.net
so confused...
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004
tried from dns tools
(http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ping.ch?ip=2.0.0.127.bl.spamcop.net) and I
get the following
Can not route to 2.0.0.127.bl.spamcop.net
That's normal. If you go to
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/lookup.ch?ip=2.0.0.127.bl.spamcop.nettype=A
, you'll see that the A record of
not sure where to go from here.. all the checks on the dns server say that
it is working correctly. when I look at the cached lookups it shows
bl.spamcop.net... but not the a record or the ip address...
Bennie
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
not sure where to go from here.. all the checks on the dns server say that
it is working correctly.
No. If you type the ping command and don't see 127.0.0.2, the DNS server
isn't working properly.
when I look at the cached lookups it shows
bl.spamcop.net... but not the a record or the ip
Markus,
Just to be fair, I have mentioned or asked for a lot of different
things that have not been introduced into Declude. Clearly by the
speed of this modification, it was a very minor change to the
environment, essentially exposing data that wasn't previously exposed
in this way, but
BINGO.. removed the forwards to att and it let me find it... thanks
Scott
Bennie
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why is this getting thru
not sure
Just noticed this in the news and didn't see it on this list.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/habeas_spam_lawsuit/
Glad they are doing something about it.
Meanwhile Habeas is implementing technical modifications that will render
future Habeas Warrant Mark spoofing attacks ineffective.
Based on the following link, Habeas is recommending that users no longer
rely on solely on the Habeas headers to whitelist messages:
http://habeas.com/configurationPages/spamassassin.htm
The patches Habeas provides for Spamassassin remove the weight reduction
rules based on the Habeas
Scott, since SpamCop has now setup a RBL to support URI checking, is this
something you will consider adding support for in Declude JunkMail?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: SpamAssassin Users [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 6:22 PM
Scott,
I've been playing with this for a bit now and it seems that the weight
isn't being passed as %WEIGHT%, or maybe it is strangely formatted.
My script now uses two values, the first being the current weight in
Declude, and the second being the SKIPIFWEIGHT equivalent. The
following line
Great info! Thanks Bill.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Habeas win judgment
Based on the following link, Habeas is
37 matches
Mail list logo
