Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: imail q files magically dissapearing

2006-10-23 Thread Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Craig,   fpReview loads the D* file.  If you are having failures in the SMTP transaction you will have broken files (i.e. the Q* file does not exist OR is prefaced with t*).   I am not sure what Imail version your running but have seen others report a signifigant increase in broken connection

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: imail q files magically dissapearing

2006-10-23 Thread Craig Edmonds
on further inspection, the files where the q spool files have dissapeared all have the ERR 02 Virus scan in the log file.I am running ClamWIN. Is this an clamwin error?   206229 10:23 23:59 SMTPD(3b24000400828f94) [65.17.213.163] connect 80.33.86.200 port 12913206230 10:23 23:59 SMTPD(3b2400

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: imail q files magically dissapearing

2006-10-23 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
I've noticed the same thing in all versions of Ipswitch IMail Server; the cause was broken connections, 99% of which were spam.   Only in the absolute latest, v9.10 from Sep-06-2006, have I noticed that IMail cleans up after itself.  There is an item about this in the latest release notes.  

Re: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouched and unscanned

2006-10-23 Thread Matt
David, Thanks to both you and the other Dave for taking another look at this. Matt David Barker wrote: Darin, Our engineer Dave Franco is looking at a way to rewrite every message to standardize the format in order to overcome the incorrect line terminator issue. As there are several other

[Declude.JunkMail] OT: imail q files magically dissapearing

2006-10-23 Thread Craig Edmonds
On one of my imail servers, my spool folder is slowly filling up with D files.   I am using fpreview to view the files in the spool and there are currently 180 or so emails.   when i try to "return to queue" I get an error saying that the q file could not be found, whch isa bit strange beca

Re: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouched and unscanned

2006-10-23 Thread Darin Cox
Thanks, David. We appreciate your efforts. Darin. - Original Message - From: "David Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: RE: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouc

RE: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouched and unscanned

2006-10-23 Thread David Barker
I will see what I can do to bring together a list of known issues. Just give me some time (days) and I will get it posted. David B www.declude.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:19 AM To: declud

Re: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouched and unscanned

2006-10-23 Thread Darin Cox
Thanks, David. We appreciate your input. Is it feasible to post a list of known issues and/or issues being worked? I realize that's a lot of disclosure, and would probably increase call volume significantly, but I also know that would make me feel much more comfortable of someday being able to e

RE: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouched and unscanned

2006-10-23 Thread David Barker
Darin, Our engineer Dave Franco is looking at a way to rewrite every message to standardize the format in order to overcome the incorrect line terminator issue. As there are several other things he is working on I do not have a definitive release date for this, I am looking at moving around some a

Re: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouched and unscanned

2006-10-23 Thread Darin Cox
David Barker, Can you tell us the status of this old case? What progress has been made on this seemingly critical issue? Darin. - Original Message - From: "Michael Thomas - Mathbox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 1:09 AM Subject: RE: SPAM-WARN: Re: [Declude.Ju

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] RE: On RFC Violation - Declude allows attachments and Virus to pass through untouched and unscanned

2006-10-23 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi Matt: >> Now according to Michael's tests, the CR-only pattern leads to parsing issues in Declude Virus where it can't even find the attachment to scan it << The point I'm trying to make is, that the "attachment not discovered" problem may not at all be a problem with incorrect linefeeds IN th

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Different issue - Process flow question

2006-10-23 Thread John T \(Lists\)
> 1. Is it not true that when properly installed and running, that Declude > handles EVERY message that passes through the mail server? Every message that (in the case of Imail) SMTPD32 service hands it. > 2. There is only one GLOBAL.CFG. Correct. > 3. Every message processed should attempt to