Re: [Declude.JunkMail] CBL:Abuse on dnsstuff.com

How does dnsstuff.com redirect me to their warning web page when I have to proxy in my settings...that would be a good tool for me to have... It doesn't. It would actually be easier to do that; you can just look for several HTTP headers that indicate that a proxy is being used (such as X-Forwar

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] problem with DNSstuff.com web site

>That IP is our gateway address. I can get to those sites from any of our >DMZ servers or from home, but not from inside the network. I am the only >person who goes to those sites and I go there very infrequently (2-4 time a >month). The problem is that someone using your IP was using a Java

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] problem with DNSstuff.com web site

The problem is ... I forgot to mention, your IP is unblocked now. :) -Scott --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] problem with DNSstuff.com web site

Dave Beckstrom wrote: >>The problem is that someone using your IP was using a Java program to >>access our site > >That was more than likely a search engine spider indexing your site. Not a legitimate one. :) We do have a lot of search engines crawling our site, some of which we let do so

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Max number of files in directory?

> On NTFS systems, this is most likely app-related such as Explorerer where they have to deal with > slogging through all the extra files, as noted by another poster. An App opening a specific file will > see almost no degradation because the NTFS uses a tree structure to maintain fast access

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test - can I post?

> You would "think" that a company that is SPAM control and offer a product > for SPAM control would look more into "who" they use for their ISP and how > they setup their service. Just for the record, I was the one that chose EasyDNS. And at that time, I certainly had no knowledge of them ma

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test - can I post?

> Well hell Scott! > Hope all is going well for you:) > Good the hear from you Scott! I hope things are well with you. > Hear hear! :) Thank you all for the kind words. :) It is very nice to see all these familiar faces (and some new ones, too!). -Scott

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Commtouch, etc

> Contrary to your comments on the use of this forum, it has always been for all things Declude when Scott > was the sole player he never complained about the conversation threads. Positive or negative. I think you > could complain if say we were talking about phone systems. On the other hand,

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude 4.3

> Oh and prices were increased from $132 to $295 before they were dropped back > to $132 for legacy customers, so there was no price cut except in the sense > of department stores raising prices to have a sale. FYI, from the time that Service Agreements first came out through December, 2004 th

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] "may skip - 1"

> Could anyone tell me why these test would be skipped? That's one of the potentially misleading debug log file entries that I added. :) The debug mode was originally designed as a troubleshooting tool for someone with access to the source code, so there are occasionally comments that could

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Undocumented Directive 4.x

> I used to know what sleep is. But a couple years ago Scott convinced me it > is a four letter word so I stopped getting so much, keeping it to a bare > minimum. > Hey wait a minute, isn't he getting more of that four letter word now? If I said "yes", would you really believe me? :)

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Discussions

> I actually miss the twice annual entertaining discussions on the Imail forum > between Scott and Len with Sandy added for spice. It almost happened a couple weeks ago, on a BIND newsgroup, where I brought something up and Len jumped into the conversation. It was a moderated newsgroup, thoug

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Processing Order???

I've asked the same in the past and never got an answer. I'd like to know what is included in #3 ("most"?) and #7 ("extra" tests). Unfortunately, only Ipswitch can answer for certain. My best guess is that the statistical filtering is in #7, and (just about?) everything else is in #3. But there

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Attach to different domains

We are using the attach action for spam that falls within a certain score. It works fine. However, we would like to use a different spamattach.eml depending on the recipients domain. Is this possible? Unfortunately, that is not possible. -Sc

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] IP block

Below is the header I caught with an IMAIL rule but it should be caught with a Declude rule (I think) I have all email coming from 222.0.0.0/8 being deleted and this one was notthe first IP 63.238.52.97 is my first layer of filtering that is in house... The problem is that: Received: from t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] IP block

> One option here would be to use a line "HOPHIGH 2" in your > \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file, which would scan the first two hops, which > would also cause the 222.126.26.96 IP to be scanned. Hold on, maybe I have misunderstood the hophigh feature all this time. Do you mean to say that by using h

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Email being released today - Advance Notice

I hate to disagree with you! See below email. I am also working on finding in my archive another email between Scott and self clarifying Service Agreements this same topic. When the first Declude Service Agreements were sold in 2001, they were per server, and upgrades would not extend the Servic

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Service Agreements

I seem to recall that the license code is based on the fqdn of the mail server. Wouldn't that mean that an individual license would be required for each server it is installed on in order to function? That is correct. The Declude software is licensed per-server, so if you have multiple servers,

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Major Declude/SPF problem... any ideas?

The SPF is failing because the private IP range (192.168.1.XXX) is not listed in our SPF DNS records. I don't know if it would be wise to put private IP ranges in the SPF DNS record. Is there a way to skip SPF testing on internal messages... those that never hit a public IP? You might want to

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Email being released today - Advance Notice

When we purchased our second set of products for a second server we confirmed that the SA did cover all of our software from Declude. If this is so, it was an exception to the normal policy. The one thing that I think should be addressed is Declude's licensing policy on a hot-spare system. I know

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Service Agreements

So $264 for Declude AV/JM regardless if Pro or Standard, or multiple SA's? Correct. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mai

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Custom Filters

Can you have spaces in you custom filter files? BODY 5 CONTAINS Application is Pre Approved BODY 5 CONTAINS Take advantage now BODY 5 CONTAINS You don't want to miss this Those will work fine. Spaces will work in the middle or end of filters, just not at the beginning.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] External rule not weighting properly

X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SNIFFER-EXPERIMENTAL-ABSTRACT, SPFUNKNOWN [0] As you can see it failed these two tests, but the weight should be 5. Any thoughts on why this is not working properly? It is working properly. If you remove those two tests, you'll see that the weight of the E-mail is -5 (due to

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMDOMAINS and "No Reverse DNS"

I have a couple of SPAMDOMAINS where I would like to have "No Reverse DNS" be a viable alternative to the domain but still block on everything else. Can I just put that string "No Reverse DNS" in second column to pass through domains which only match "domain.com" and "No Reverse DNS"? Unfortun

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMDOMAINS and "No Reverse DNS"

Would this alternative filter work? TESTSFAILED END NOTCONTAINS REVDNS MAILFROM 1 ENDSWITH.msn.com # ok it is from msn and there is no revdns Ah, good thinking -- that should work. You might also want to add a line: REVDNS END CONTAINS.msn.com to make sure that the

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Large attachment --> black hole

I have a user that was sent a 10mb attachment. They report that it was kicked back to the sender saying max message size exceeded. This domain doesn't have a max message size set, nor does the particular user, nor does he have a max MAILBOX size. In the logs, I am seeing something very strange:

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DomainKeys ?

Does Declude support Domain Keys or is there a DomainKeys external test available? No, it does not. When we last researched Domain Keys, it appeared to be quite complex, and not very popular. It does seem to be gaining some popularity, so we may do some more research about it in the near futur

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Does STOPALLTESTS really stop all tests?

I've got a whitelist filter file where I use the action "STOPALLTESTS": MAILFROMSTOPALLTESTSCONTAINS@netrends.com This rule is defined as the first rule in my global.cfg (above all of the IP4r, Catchall, externals, etc.) If it trips the WHITELIST filter, why do the other tests

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Log file locking

IF the log file is locked and declude tried to write to it, what happens if declude can't? The log file entry won't be saved. Declude will continue to function as it normally would, except with one (or more) less log file entries. -Scott --- De

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] MailFrom issues

Hi. Yesterday (Wednesday)afternoon, I had some false positives from users that I usually receive mail from, after failing mainly the MailFrom test Reason: Domain "name of the domain here" has no MX or A records Domains are working fine and they have MXs. Even one of the domains is in my Imail Serv

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AutoWhiteList

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

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

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

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] Imail/Declude queues backing up - I think it's Declude

When the _{message_ID}.~MD messages appear, if I stop the queue service and restart then they turn into Q{message_ID}.RMD files In that case, it appears that the IMail queue service, when started, will automatically unlock any locked E-mails. That is OK if they are at least 1 hour old, or a ba

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] declude problems after imail upgrade.

I did recive this spam in my inbox this morning. As you can see it does not have any declude info and no Imail spam info either. What do the IMail and Declude log files show for the E-mail?What version of IMail are you running? What version of Declude are you running?

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] declude problems after imail upgrade.

I did search the declude log file for [EMAIL PROTECTED] but could not find anything.. If you use the "XSPOOLNAME ON" option in the \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file, it will be easy to find the entries for the E-mail in the log file. If you do not use the XSPOOLNAME ON option, you may need to look

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] declude problems after imail upgrade.

Here is 2 messages that did fail weight350 and did get saved in the weight350 directory. This is working correctly, expect there are no declude headers for the messages. Below each message is the lines from the declude log file: The only time that I have seen this happen (an E-mail that didn't a

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] IP listed in MTLDB

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

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] Declude and Overflow Directory

What is the max number of declude processes that will kick off if there are lots of Q*.SMD messages in the overflow directory? Is there an internal limit or is it based on some option? There is no limit, if you want to be technical. Specifically, Declude counts the total number of service-started

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail/Declude queues backing up - I think it's Declude

How does Imail know if Declude has run on these files? It doesn't know. But since it doesn't keep track, it has to start Declude. Scanning an E-mail twice won't hurt (except for CPU usage), but not scanning it will hurt (it can cause Evil E-mails to come through). > Ipswitch says that the pro

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude incorrectly detecting subject.

I am noticing some emails with this in the header. The problem is Declude is analyzing it as the subject when is should be using the one later in the email. See below. Any thoughts. This is fixed in v2.0b. :) -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The ad

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude incorrectly detecting subject.

Where can I download version 2.0? If you go to http://www.declude.com and log on to your account there, you can download it. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra rel

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DNSstuff - NetGeo responding with empty page

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/netgeo.ch?ip=81.15.216.130 and any other IP Thanks for pointing that out -- it's fixed now. NetGeo hits were a major part of the DDoS attack that www.dnsstuff.com has been undergoing for a few months now, a

Re: Fw: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude incorrectly detecting subject.

Any thought on this. I upgraded to 2.0b and now get Failed to get temporary file name: 267 in the log file. That's something we are still working on. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Trouble with 2.0b installation...

Just ran through the 2.0b installation, get an error almost at completion "Unable to copy file to target directory." After clicking OK a dozen or so times, it completes. I then dropped to a DOS prompt and ran declude to confirm the version, and got this: Declude v1.79 has already been instal

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude on SmarterMail

Sent this previous email a couple of days back but since it is a beta I guess email support is not supported. FYI, we have no record of any support requests from you. So declude team, app does not work yet on SmarterMail. It does, but apparently not on your server. :) No logs generated, so looks

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SmarterMail move, and some complaining

We curently own Declude Virus Pro, JMPro, and Hijack, and our support contract is up to date If we decide to move from Imail to Smarter mail, do we have to pay any (declude) upgrade fee ? No, there is no upgrade fee. :) Also, I think it is ironic that, after most of us decided to stay with Imail

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] corrupt RIPE data

What does this mean? X-Note: Reverse DNS & IP: pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20] X-Note: Country Chain: 'EU' [corrupt RIPE data]->GERMANY->destination This has triggered ROUTING test and I am just wondering if the all-dat file is corrupt or needs adjustment or ... That means that RIPE (the organization

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] corrupt RIPE data

I know this is a sore issue with you - but this is not "a mistake". It is a policy (that you don't agree with). Without knowing that there *is* a policy, I cannot agree (or disagree!) with it. :) A) ISO has recognized that strict interpretation of the definitions of ISO 3166 prevent inclusion

[Declude.JunkMail] ETA for SPAMHEADERS glitch

Just to let everyone know, we have identified the issue with the SPAMHEADERS test. As most people realized, most E-mails sent with a date involving a year after 2004 were failing the SPAMHEADERS test. For those that are interested in the details, if the SPAMHEADERS code matches the bitmask 0x4

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Notification Policy...

> The urgent list you are referring to was for urgent virus > notices, of which since inception there was only one use. I've considered this list not virus- or junkmail-specific. Maybe my mistake. It wasn't even specific to Declude Virus. The reason for the list was that there was a rash of new

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?

I also agree it would have been nice to have a warning announcement about the Spam Header test being broken officially from Declude, more timely, and along with advice what to do in the interim. This is not the same Declude operation to me as in years past! FWIW, it was handled very similarly to

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?

1. An acknowledgement on the list from someone that they knew about the problem - it WAS a holiday and I think people should have lives - but just a "hey we know" within 24 hours would've been nice. Yes, that would have been nice. It did take a bit more than 24 hours for an official response on

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?

On another note... has anyone seen any sort of (cascading?) effect from the SpamHeaders glitch? There aren't any, designed effects. Specifically, all the SPAMHEADERS issue does is causes E-mails to fail the SPAMHEADERS test. That adds weight to the E-mail, and if any actions are performed on t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders - Fix

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

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] test.dat

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? One of the things that often happens in betas (and the old interims) is that files will be created for v

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders - Fix

I have not upgraded to fix the 2005 spamheaders test as of yet. Our CPU has been maxed out and the server bogged down since my return after the New Year. I have commented out the spamheaders test and the CPU is still maxed. I went into IMAIL and changed the delivery application from declude.exe to

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders - Fix -

Sorted by CPU the system process is first and second is a toss up between declude, smtpd32, and queuemgr followed by as many as 16 simultaneous instances of declude with cpu between 1 and 4. That normal indicates an above average volume of mail (or, in other words, the system is at full capacity)

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter for blank subject lines

I have pro and my filters work, yet ISBLANK, IS BLANK, IS, and IS , all pass mail with blank subjects through. White listing plays no part. Do you know if that is supposed to work for sure? Are you creating a filter test for it? The "SUBJECT 10 ISBLANK" line should work with the latest version

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] HELO Filter not Working?

Here is the Imail 8 log: 01:07 13:13 SMTPD(d15f7804014ea63d) [63.107.174.14] connect 67.132.45.18 port 2525 01:07 13:13 SMTPD(d15f7804014ea63d) [67.132.45.18] EHLO mail.dollardays.com 01:07 13:13 SMTPD(d15f7804014ea63d) [67.132.45.18] MAIL FROM:... I set up a filter to simpify reporting on mail

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] HELO Filter not Working?

>> Remember, Declude JunkMail looks at the HELO/EHLO of the remote mailserver, based on IPBYPASS/HOP << Uh - that's the answer. Thanks for clearing this up. So the "HELO" is not necessarily taken from the HELO, but from the HEADER. Both, actually. Declude JunkMail gets the "HELO" from the real HE

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.82 -> Last Action no longer logged for IGNORE

Can you remind me, what additional messages/log lines I will see if #LOG_OK NONE is commented out? With v1.82, it will add back the "Message OK" line(s) and the "Tests Failed" line(s). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam sol

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.82 -> Last Action no longer logged for IGNORE

>>> Can you remind me, what additional messages/log lines I will see if >>> >>> #LOG_OK NONE >>> >>> is commented out? > With v1.82, it will add back the "Message OK" line(s) and the "Tests > Failed" line(s). Please note the subject: I AM running 1.82 (the SpamHeader fix!) Yes, I am aware of

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] HELO Filter not Working?

>Both, actually. Declude JunkMail gets the "HELO" from the real HELO/EHLO >from the SMTP envelope. The method Declude JunkMail uses to obtain the >HELO, however, is the headers. Ok, this is clear as mudwhich is it, envelope or headers? The SMTP envelope contains information about the E-mail

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] HELOBOGUS for Email from Postfix Gateway

However, I'm having a problem with Declude triggering on reporting emails that are generated directly ON the gateway itself: That's because the gateway is running an MTA that adds very poor Received: headers. - Declude parses IP Address 0.0.0.0 - Declude parses HELO string of "userid" Here is t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Calling an Executable - evaluating in multiple tests

SNIFFER external nonzero "sniffer.exe authcode" 1 0 SNIFFER-SCAMS external 053 "sniffer.exe authcode" 2 0 SNIFFER-PORN external 054 "sniffer.exe authcode" 2 0 SNIFFER-MALWARE external 055 "sniffer.exe authcode" 3 0 SNIFFER-OBFUSC external 062 "sniffer.exe authcode" 2 0

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Old email accounts

Is there a way to keep email that is sent to old non-existant email accounts on my server from being processed by Declude. I have noticed that a lot of the spam in spamreview is to email addresses that are no longer there.. If you have IMail reject those E-mails, Declude won't scan them. Othe

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] external program with quotes....

I'm writing my own external program to compare domain names. I need to pass the %REVDNS% parameter with quotes around it due to possible spaces in it. Is this possible? No, it is not possible, since the entire command line needs to be quoted. However, as Kevin pointed out, reverse DNS entries sho

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something? I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed, yet, they don't appear to have failed the spamcop test. This is the line I have in my cfg file: SPAMCOP ip4r bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 5 0 Is there something I should notice so

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Google and/or Earthlink failing subjectchars

Just commenting about the semantics of what constitutes a "release". I'm not sure that 1.82 fixes this since it was targeted at the SPAMDOMAINS issue (could have, but it isn't documented), but the latest beta release was definitely reported to have fixed it. Correct. 1.82 is just 1.81 with a p

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic..

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1749328,00.asp\ "One troublesome technique finding favor with spammers involves sending mass mailings in the middle of the night from a domain that has not yet been registered. After the mailings go out, t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Interesting tactic..

> As far as the technique is concerned, it really seems silly -- I can't > see what benefit a spammer would have from doing this. I have never heard of this before but one would suppose the logic is the domains will not be listed anywhere - yet. So the mail gets delivered and then the domains go

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Thanks for the reply. I have checked my DNS settings, but everything is fine. It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). I've checked again, and nothing is be

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

> It is important to note that you should only have one DNS > server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known > sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). Really? I've listed 3 DNS for over 4 years now without any problem. Is there any KB article? I'm not sure if they ha

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Do you have do you have any further information about this statement - what type of errors, etc. "It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed)." The issue I am aware of

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outgoing mail

To prevent Declude JM from scanning outbound mail I know I can whitelist IP ranges. Can they be anywhere in the global.cfg or do they need to be at the top. In general, any configuration options can go anywhere in the config files, with the exception of test actions in the global.cfg file (which

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Unknown error code

A message today from Len Conrad at IMGate failed the BADHEADERS and ROUTING tests. The error code returned by both tests was the same: a004010f The lookup on declude.com doesn't know what this means. That code is a combination of two things. The first is as John pointed out: Len will often use

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Time out

ERROR: External program pictest didn't finish quick enough; terminating. Does anyone no how to increase the time out for external tests ? There is no way. An external program should not be taking many minutes to process an E-mail. -Scott --- De

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Time out

How long is the timeout ? It currently waits 5 minutes (it used to wait up to an hour, but then when external programs started hanging, it would cause serious problems with mail backing up). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam s

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF logs

Just noticed that the SPF logs that were stored in C:\ are gone. Did they get moved or where they done away with? They were done away with. They were part of the beta testing of SPF. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution f

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] %ALLRECIPS% Strange

X-RECIPIENTS: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] It show the same email address three times?? I would think it would show the aliases email addresses or or just the alias address. Declude version 1.82 What does the IMail SMTP log file show for the E-mail? Note that if for so

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] %ALLRECIPS% Strange

The france@ account is the alias and points to one alias and two accounts. This is a messages that was held and then moved back into the spool folder. In this case, Declude JunkMail is seeing three recipients (as the alias points to 3 different addresses). But, it displays the intended recipient

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Not scanning mail passing between domains on the same server

I have noticed that when a user send a mail message to an address on another domain, but located on that server Declude does not scan the messages for viruses or spam. Is this via web messaging? If so, older versions of IMail may not call Declude. In this case, though, it is extremely unlikel

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Not whitelisted, why

Log lines 01/21/2005 03:03:45 Qe18f09a600c0cf70 Using [incoming] CFG file D:\IMAIL\Declude\$default$.junkmail. 01/21/2005 03:03:45 Qe18f09a600c0cf70 Redirecting [EMAIL PROTECTED] to file D:\Imail\declude\junkmailfiles\standardabrasives.com.junkmail. Are there further log file entries? ### fir

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow directory and a note about Windows 2003 DNS

Could you please let me know what condition causes E-mail to be left in the overflow directory, and exactly how Declude determines how/when to process such messages. The short version is that the situation is handled better than if the overflow directory isn't used (many people don't get that).

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Not whitelisted, why

No it is not the last line of the file! In that case, the next step would be to double-check all settings (such as making sure that the paths are correct, no typos, etc.). If that doesn't explain the problem, you can use LOGLEVEL DEBUG, and send the results to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and we can see

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] whitelist not configured right?

So in the whitelist file for our domain name, I put a line IP x.x.x.x, where x.x.x.x is my home IP address. However, the Declude continues to scan messages sent from my home PC for spam, and to act accordingly. The problem is that whitelist files don't have an option of "IP x.x.x.x". In this case

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow directory and a note about Windows 2003 DNS

Am I to assume a "first in, first out" type of scenario in the way that it handles the overflow? I believe so, but that is handled by Windows (Declude simply asks Windows for all the files, and whatever Windows returns first gets processed first). I have my server set to 60 delivery threads, up

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] whitelist not configured right?

Thanks, Scott. I also thought that whitelist files included all of the same options as the whitelist commands that go into a global.cfg file. No: The D:\IMail\Declude\mywhitelist.txt file would then contain either one E-mail address ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]") or domain ("@example.com") or subdomain

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Overflow directory and a note about Windows 2003 DNS

You seemed to indicate that service launched processes count against the threads...meaning that smtp32.exe launches declude.exe, which launches F-Prot and McAfee. So would this count for 4 threads (not according to Declude, but Windows/IMail)? What about Sniffer and each external test that I

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Difference Between MAILFROM and FROMFILE

I apologize for asking such a silly question but I'm suffering from a mental roadblock. What is the difference between the MAILFROM and FROMFILE tests? I understand the difference from a Declude configuration syntactical standpoint but I don't understand the intended benefit of having two tests w

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Difference Between MAILFROM and FROMFILE

I'm sorry. I didn't mean the MAILFROM test. I mean the MAILFROM entry that you put in the filter file, e.g. MAILFROM 50 CONTAINS suspect. Filters work by looking at a specific piece of information, and comparing to information you supply. So the line "MAILFROM 50 CONTAINS suspect" does ex

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Authenticating account

Is there a command to filter (in a filter file) based on the account the authenticated the session ? No; IMail does not store that information (aside from in the log file). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mai

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2.0 Manuals?

With the official release of version 2 on Jan 31 I would like to know if the manual will be rev'ed as well or will we still have the old 1.81 manual? Yes, it will. :) I want to know more about: The Virus Pro Event logging. What is it? What can I do with it? That provides an option to include Decl

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2.0 Manuals?

If I am using domain $default$.junkmail config files then if I do a WEIGHT40 DELETE it will delete the mail for everyone in that domain? In this case, it will work exactly as it had before. Since all users had DELETE before, the E-mail now will still be deleted. But if there is a single user fr

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DNSSTUFF.COM Web Site Down?

It's 4:30A PST, and I cannot access the 'dnsstuff.com' web site. Is anyone else having the same problem? The site was being reset -- normally it's only down for a few seconds, but this morning it was down for about 10 minutes. -Scott --- Declud

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] new decoding-problem

we received a new mail, wich contains an attachment. the filename is coded as follows: Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="=?koi8-r?B?NC5wZGYuZXhl?=" we are running a filter that searches for combinations like this, but with the used encoding, declude seems to be unable to track this

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] new decoding-problem

so you think something like filename="=? shouldn't appear in a legal mail? that would give us the opportunity to filter for camouflaged attachmentnames. It *should* be illegal in legitimate E-mail, from what I can tell. But it is possible that legitimate E-mails may be sent out that way for some

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Problem with subject line in version 2.0

There appears to be a problem in version 2.0 where Declude is seeing the first character after the word subject as the start of the subject line. The first character is a colon and followed by a space and then the actual subject line. You are correct. I'm surprised this didn't get caught during t

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >