[Declude.JunkMail] DLAnalyzer 4.0 Released (Virus and Junkmail Processing Integrated)

2004-12-13 Thread Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
DLAnalyzer version 4.0 is now released.  With version 4.0 we have integrated Declude Virus log processing into DLAnalyzer giving you the ability to generate one report that encompasses both spam and virus statistics.  In addition, to the virus processing we have added many other features to

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail/Declude queues backing up

2004-12-13 Thread Charles Frolick
Hello Mark, Monday, December 13, 2004, 10:04:38 AM, you wrote: MES> Has anyone experienced a problem when using Imail/Declude as a gateway where MES> some random messages just seem to backup in the queue for no reason? We'll MES> go into Imail's queue manager, select them and hit send now and th

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread R. Scott Perry
Umm, Wouldn't the 0 9 setting put a Positive weight on a good clean email? shouldn't it be like SNIFFER external nonzero "c:\sniffer\win32\licenseid.exe authcode" 7 -7 You are correct -- it was set up to put a positive weight on E-mail that passed the test, and not affecting the weight of E-mail

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Katie LaSalle-Lowery
I think I was seeing n9 in the log...which, now, I'm inferring was maybe negative nine due to my having a 9 at the end of the line? At this point, though, I'm really thinking that it was adding ipnotinmx and nolegitcontent as bad cholesterol instead of good cholesterol... Meaning, they were addin

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Pete McNeil
On Monday, December 13, 2004, 5:42:08 PM, Bill wrote: BL> - Original Message - BL> From: "William Stillwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Umm, Wouldn't the 0 9 setting put a Positive weight on a good clean email? >> >> shouldn't it be like >> >> SNIFFER external nonzero "c:\sniffer\win32\lice

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Bill Landry
- Original Message - From: "William Stillwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Umm, Wouldn't the 0 9 setting put a Positive weight on a good clean email? > > shouldn't it be like > > SNIFFER external nonzero "c:\sniffer\win32\licenseid.exe authcode" 7 -7 > > which would put a Positive 7 on a nonze

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread William Stillwell
Umm, Wouldn't the 0 9 setting put a Positive weight on a good clean email? shouldn't it be like SNIFFER external nonzero "c:\sniffer\win32\licenseid.exe authcode" 7 -7 which would put a Positive 7 on a nonzero return, and a -7 on a Zero Return ? Also, when posting your global.cfg file, I would re

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread R. Scott Perry
I have commented out sniffer, ipnotinmx and nolegitcontent as those are my suspects... Everything else is how the configuration was when I became aware I had problems. #IPNOTINMX ipnotinmx x x 0 -3 #NOLEGITCONTENT nolegitcontent x x 0 -5 #SNIFFER

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Katie LaSalle-Lowery
Here's my global.cfg. I have commented out sniffer, ipnotinmx and nolegitcontent as those are my suspects... Everything else is how the configuration was when I became aware I had problems. Thanks! AHBLip4rdnsbl.ahbl.org * 6 0 BLITZEDALL

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread R. Scott Perry
Okay, upon further review, and if I'm reading things right, it looks like MessageSniffer is *not* getting a false postive (logs shows "clean") but Declude is penalizing by applying the weight as though the test was failed. I sent an example to [EMAIL PROTECTED] earlier today. It looks like maybe

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
If you post those relevant sections of your Global.cfg, we can help figure it out. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Katie LaSalle-Lowery > Sent: Monday, De

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Katie LaSalle-Lowery
Okay, upon further review, and if I'm reading things right, it looks like MessageSniffer is *not* getting a false postive (logs shows "clean") but Declude is penalizing by applying the weight as though the test was failed. I sent an example to [EMAIL PROTECTED] earlier today. It looks like maybe D

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Matt
Katie, Report your false positives to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You must include the full source of the E-mail for this to work appropriately. You can simply copy and paste the content from a MBX or SMD file into the body of an E-mail and send it. You must send the E-mail from the account that you h

[Declude.JunkMail] Upgraded Declude Thurs night -- since then getting false positives on MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Katie LaSalle-Lowery
Thurs evening I upgraded our Declude installation to version 1.81 (we had been at 1.65). I have become aware of a number of false positives in MessageSniffer since Friday. We had not seen any false positives in MessageSniffer previously. Any thoughts or suggestions? Katie LaSalle-Lowery Centri

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
It is done by scheduled batch file, or by trigger using a program alias in Imail. There are instructions on the MessageSniffer site, as well as support from SortMonster. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Dec

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Chris Ulrich
Do you have to configure a service with FireDaemon to check every hour or does it do it automatically by itself? At 01:07 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote: Hi, It's highly recommended. I accounts for 70% of my "hold" weight and it is very much on target with very few false positives. Rules are updated i

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Markus Gufler
> It looks like it scores pretty well... > > http://www2.spamchk.com/public.html Yes I can confirm this. (The results you can see on the link above are results on my Mailserver) I can highly recommend Messagesniffer because the rules are always up to date (2 - 4 each day) and as you can see hig

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Matt
Chris, Sniffer will catch ~96% of all spam with 99.8% accuracy (on my system at least). While building redundancies is important in any system, it is the single most effective tool that is available to Declude users, and it fulfills a large part of the content filtering that you have been atte

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Katie LaSalle-Lowery
Hi Chris, I suspect that you'll find that many of the Declude users are this list are also using MessageSniffer. We only recently began using it and can tell you that we saw a dramatic increase in spam catches when we did so. If you look in your global.cfg file, you'll see there is already a

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi, It's highly recommended. I accounts for 70% of my "hold" weight and it is very much on target with very few false positives. Rules are updated in a "rules" file and I check for updates hourly. It has really helped with dealing with "new outbreaks" of SPAM before the Ips are on various black

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
I use, recommend, support, sell (Sniffer) both Message Sniffer and SpamCheck. Message Sniffer is subscription based and includes updated rule bases. Updates are generally 3-4 a day. SpamCheck is free, and is configuration file based. What SpamCheck does amoung others is check a lot of body codin

[Declude.JunkMail] relays.visi.com down?

2004-12-13 Thread DLAnalyzer Support
Does anyone know if relays.visi.com is officially down? I havent had a hit against it since early November. RSL - relays.visi.com Darrell Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude And Imail.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] IP listed in MTLDB

2004-12-13 Thread R. Scott Perry
I have this line in my config. MTLDB ip4rmtldb.declude.com* 8 0 One of my IP numbers is failing this test. How can I find out why. If you go to http://www.mtldb.org/ it should have the information there. -Scott --- Dec

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Katie LaSalle-Lowery
Chris, I forgot one important comment: Customer service from MessageSniffer has been fantastic! Katie LaSalle-Lowery Centric Internet Services 1410 Reserve St. Missoula, MT 59801 Local Phone 549-3337 ext. 21 Toll Free (888)593-2776 ext. 21 Fax (406)721-3438 -Original Message- From:

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Chris Ulrich
It looks like it scores pretty well... http://www2.spamchk.com/public.html That said, and I'm embarrassed to ask two questions in one day, but what experiences have people had with SpamChk as well? Are people running the "stable version" (dated 7/29/03) or the "beta" (dated 1/31/04) Doesn't see

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Dan Geiser
I've never heard of it. - Original Message - From: "Chris Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 12:45 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer > Is anyone using this product as part of their filtering? > > http:/

[Declude.JunkMail] Question on SortMonster/MessageSniffer

2004-12-13 Thread Chris Ulrich
Is anyone using this product as part of their filtering? http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer Any feedback? Does it download "definition updates" or something similar, or is it purely rules based and the only update would be to the program itself? How would you integrate this in to the confi

[Declude.JunkMail] Imail/Declude queues backing up

2004-12-13 Thread Mark E. Smith
Has anyone experienced a problem when using Imail/Declude as a gateway where some random messages just seem to backup in the queue for no reason? We'll go into Imail's queue manager, select them and hit send now and the queue opens up a flood gate of messages. I wish I had more info but I'm not su

[Declude.JunkMail] IP listed in MTLDB

2004-12-13 Thread Frederick Samarelli
I have this line in my config. MTLDB ip4rmtldb.declude.com* 8 0 One of my IP numbers is failing this test. How can I find out why. Fred --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mai

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AutoWhiteList

2004-12-13 Thread E. Ballerini
R. Scott Perry wrote: Can we use @domain.com in our webmail adress book to whitelist all mail from specific domain ? No, IMail won't allow that, but you can add "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The "all@" indicates that every E-mail address at the domain should be whitelisted. That is not completely tru

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AutoWhiteList

2004-12-13 Thread R. Scott Perry
Can we use @domain.com in our webmail adress book to whitelist all mail from specific domain ? No, IMail won't allow that, but you can add "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The "all@" indicates that every E-mail address at the domain should be whitelisted. also, if one of the recepient has the sender in hi