I use Search and Replace from Funduc software (http://www.funduc.com), which
is an easy to use Windows GUI GREP-type utility. Given the message ID, I
would search the declude log for the ID. Search and Replace will show you
the lines that contain the ID. That should be sufficient to tell you wha
grep? :)
Jonathan
At 09:45 PM 1/4/2005, you wrote:
Is there a utility that you can type the message ID and get back the
reasons a test failed tests..instead of going into the logs and pulling it
out..
Richard Farris
Ethixs Online
1.270.247. Office
1.800.548.3877 Tech Support
"Crossroads to a
An explanation of this file... it's purpose and how it gets there.. would be
very beneficial. Is supposed to be there, or is it part of the beta testing?
Will it re-create itself if deleted?
Most of us have automated routines which clear out our spool directories
since they grow quite rapidly w
Is there a utility that you can type the message ID and get back the reasons
a test failed tests..instead of going into the logs and pulling it out..
Richard Farris
Ethixs Online
1.270.247. Office
1.800.548.3877 Tech Support
"Crossroads to a Cleaner Internet"
---
[This E-mail was scanned for
Frederick,
I have forwarded your email to one of our support staff who will work with
you on this question.
Barry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederick Samarelli
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:07 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.co
I have noticed a file in the spool directory "test.dat"
It gets updated frequently.
I am running 2.0.3b
Any thoughts
---
[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 send an E-
> No we did not remove any X400 addresses, but I did discover the
> problem. There are users in the OU that do not have email addresses.
> They use the OU to set policies but not all users are allowed email
> addresses. I have confirmed with another client that if email
> addresses are
Unfortunately, I don't see myself building in workarounds for this;
too many options. Am I indeed correct that you've removed the X400
addresses from these users? Can you reapply a Recipient Policy to give
them an X400 placeholder?
No we did not remove any X400 addresses, but I did discover
> Sorry to be a pain,
Don't sweat it. :)
> When I run the script against the Staff ou I import 293 of the
> 637 users then get the following message:
> D:\IMail\Scripts\exchange2aliases.vbs(68, 4) Microsoft VBScript
> runtime error: Object not a collection
Hmm. This error indicates that the pr
> Along those lines, what is the proper way of going about ldap'ing 2
> or more OU's in order to get all the email addresses. What I have
> been doing is calling the script 3 times (different scripts and
> params) and using the flag that removes all entries on the first
> pass only. H
Sorry to be a pain,
When I run the script against the Staff ou I import 293 of the 637 users then
get the following message:
D:\IMail\Scripts\exchange2aliases.vbs(68, 4) Microsoft VBScript runtime error:
Object not a collection
I removed the user before and after the error thinking it was a co
Kami,
Thank you for the reply. Barry sent me a new 2.0.3b to try. So far so good.
Regards,
Bill
-- Original Message --
From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:00:49 -0500
>Hi Bill..
>
>We s
In response to: I think it's important for people to indicate how they
would like to see such things handled...
I can't say I was really appreciative of how things
were handled.
I believe a base test failure should have at the
bare minimum had a declude.junkmail mailing list announcement. E
When and were will this update be available?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:34 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Bill,
New e
I moved from 1.81 to 1.82 this morning and I am not seeing any extra cpu
load, so it doesn't seem to be universal.
I moved from the last full release..1.75? To 1.82 this morning and things
seem fine here.
Sharyn
We are the worldwide producer and marketer of the award winning Cruzan
Single
Barry,
Thank you. To confirm, I should downgrade to 1.82 from 2.0b? Will this cause
any problems?
Bill
-- Original Message --
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:33:37 -0500
>Bill
Barry,
Please disregard my last message. I received the new file after an email from
you regarding the download of 1.82.
Thank you,
Bill
-- Original Message --
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Date: Tu
Hi Bill..
We simply changed our Declude.exe an hour after installing 2.0b since we had
issues - all we did was just moved the old declude.exe and copied over the
2.0b version.
No problems..
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
I moved from 1.81 to 1.82 this morning and I am not seeing any extra cpu
load, so it doesn't seem to be universal.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Geiser
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:35 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject
Bill,
New exe is being sent to you.
Barry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
I am running 2.0b and
Scott,
I was running 1.81.
Thanks,
Dan
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders - Fix
>
> >I have upgraded to the new Declude.exe v1.82. Within a matter of minutes
of
Hi, Scott, et.al,
I have upgraded to the new Declude.exe v1.82. Within a matter of minutes of
doing this upgrade I've noticed that my mail server has started to bog down.
I don't know if I'm getting his with a new wave of spam and the server's
straining to keep up or if there might be something in
I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for 2.0b
available?
Bill
---
[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 send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I have upgraded to the new Declude.exe v1.82. Within a matter of minutes of
doing this upgrade I've noticed that my mail server has started to bog down.
Were you running v1.81 before, or a different version?
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advan
This appears to be working as desired. Thanks!
Matt
Barry Simpson wrote:
All of the input and suggestions as to how issues like this could be handled
has been noted and I thank you for your input
We will be posting the updated, fixed .exe on our site tomorrow. For those
who have current service a
Sandy,
Along those lines, what is the proper way of going about ldap'ing 2 or
more OU's in order to get all the email addresses. What I have been doing is
calling the script 3 times (different scripts and params) and using the flag
that removes all entries on the first pass only. Howev
> If I enter 'ou="Tech Department",...' I get the message Object not
> found. . .
As spaces are totally legit in LDAP without any escaping (except at
the beginning or end of URIs--but who's going to do that on purpose?),
the "most correct" reference in LDAP terms is to leave out all
s
27 matches
Mail list logo
