Hi;
Is this a valid
test?
TESTSFAILEDWHITELISTCONTAINS[WHITELIST.
I have this as a
group combo-filter but it seems not to be working.. a lot of email is passing
through as whitelisted failing this line.
Regards,
Kami
to consider.
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 8:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] TESTSFAILED Detection
My ansewer has been to have the tests need
Hi;
I don't think with
the current TESTSFAILED option one can uniquely identify a single test or can
we?
Example:
I have broken down
all tests into combination filters with a naming convention.
IP4R-something
COMBO-IP4r-something
Now I can write
combo filters that are:
TESTSFAILED
Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on this. I would suggest
using NOTCONTAINS with an END for this purpose. Make sure that the
string is unique to that one filter so that it doesn't trip on others.
Matt
David wrote:
Hello All,
I
am currently using the TESTFAILED
Correct format. It should show up at high level logs.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/17/04 05:12PM
I seen this post below and wanted to implement the TESTSFAILED to exit out
of one of my body filters based on if another test was already triggered.
I seen this post below and wanted to implement the TESTSFAILED to exit out
of one of my body filters based on if another test was already triggered.
Is the below line correct (assuming REVERSEDNSFILTER is one of my filters
that occurs before the filter I put the below line in)?
TESTSFAILED
I seen this post below and wanted to implement the TESTSFAILED to exit
out of one of my body filters based on if another test was already triggered.
Is the below line correct (assuming REVERSEDNSFILTER is one of my filters
that occurs before the filter I put the below line in)?
TESTSFAILED END
Scott,
This is obviously a very big advance to Declude because it now allows us
to do combination tests. I have a few brief questions though.
First, does IPNOTINMX and NOLEGITCONTENT still get processed (weight
adjustments, and triggers for TESTSFAILED) after custom filters? I've
been
First, does IPNOTINMX and NOLEGITCONTENT still get processed (weight
adjustments, and triggers for TESTSFAILED) after custom filters? I've
been setting SKIPIFWEIGHT to a value equal to those tests because the
points would be deducted afterwards. This is also important if we
possibly write a
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Actually, both IPNOTINMX and NOLEGITCONTENT should be run before the
filters.
Was this changed??? Back on 12/20/2003 in a thread started by Bill on
Weight processing, several of us stated that we had seen issues
related to these being deducted only after the custom
Actually, both IPNOTINMX and NOLEGITCONTENT should be run before the filters.
Was this changed???
No.
Back on 12/20/2003 in a thread started by Bill on Weight processing,
several of us stated that we had seen issues related to these being
deducted only after the custom filters were
i just want an easy way (%variable%) to put in the header that will show all
tests that contributed to the total weight, and their individual
contribution
that mean if a mail passes ipnotinmx, then ipnotinmx (-3) should show in
the above %variable%
The next release will allow for this.
] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of serge
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
Scott
I do not think it is a good idea to hide tests like ipnotinmx, because we
wont know their weight contribution
we need a hidetest when
: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
Would anyone care to post an example so I can see the math? I still don't
get how to use IPNOTINMX properly.
Thanks, andy
- Original Message -
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 1:24
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:24 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
In the case of IPNOTINMX and NOLEGITCONTENT, it works just the opposite. If
the messages fails, no weight is added or subtracted. If the test passes,
the negative weight is subtracted. Therefore, if one
: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
Any progress/word on when certain tests can be excluded from this
variable?
This will be in the next release. :)
The next release will allow for an option HIDETESTS in the global.cfg file
(the default setting will be HIDETESTS CATCHALLMAILS IPNOTINMX
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of serge
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
Scott
I do not think it is a good idea to hide tests like ipnotinmx, because we
wont know their weight contribution
we need a hidetest when weight =0
Any progress/word on when certain tests can be excluded from this variable?
By default, any test with WEIGHT in the name should be excluded, plus
something like this in the Global.Cfg file:
EXCLUDETESTSFAILED FILTER1
EXCLUDETESTSFAILED FILTER2
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices
You know, I was thinking that something similar would be very beneficial
to go along with the new filtering functionality.
When a test scores zero points because of an END or otherwise, it would
be nice to have that test excluded from the WARN action, %TESTSFAILED%
and log level low. My logs
Any progress/word on when certain tests can be excluded from this variable?
This will be in the next release. :)
The next release will allow for an option HIDETESTS in the global.cfg file
(the default setting will be HIDETESTS CATCHALLMAILS IPNOTINMX
NOLEGITCONTENT), which will prevent those
I would though put Kami's additional suggestion much higher on my wishlist
though, where he asked about a cutoff weight in the Global.cfg similar to
what was discussed in the custom filters. I've heard that one discussed
before and I am definitely starting to appreciate the idea a bunch more
: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
I would though put Kami's additional suggestion much higher on my
wishlist though, where he asked about a cutoff weight in the Global.cfg
similar to what was discussed in the custom filters. I've heard that
one discussed before and I am definitely starting
This will be in the next release. :)
:))
The next release will allow for an option HIDETESTS in the global.cfg file
(the default setting will be HIDETESTS CATCHALLMAILS IPNOTINMX
NOLEGITCONTENT), which will prevent those tests from showing up in the
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: header.
Will we
The next release will allow for an option HIDETESTS in the global.cfg file
(the default setting will be HIDETESTS CATCHALLMAILS IPNOTINMX
NOLEGITCONTENT), which will prevent those tests from showing up in the
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: header.
Will we have to list each test exactly, or a partial
Question: Will a test stop if a certain weight is reached?
With the MAXWEIGHT line in a filter file (also in the next release), the
test will stop once the maximum weight is reached.
So you could have something like:
SKIPIFWEIGHT40
MAXWEIGHT 20
In
] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
Question: Will a test stop if a certain weight is reached?
With the MAXWEIGHT line in a filter file (also in the next release), the
test will stop once
. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED%
Question: Will a test stop if a certain weight is reached?
With the MAXWEIGHT line in a filter file (also in the next release), the
test will stop once the maximum weight
Is there a way to not show the WEIGHT and WEIGHTRANGE tests in the
%TESTFAILED% report?
The weight tests are there to do accumulation.
Say a message fails RVDNS, NOPOSTMASTER and SNIFFER and has a weight of
17. You have a test WEIGHTRANGE14-19, so it gets caught.
%TESTSFAILED% will show RVDNS,
Say a message fails RVDNS, NOPOSTMASTER and SNIFFER and has a weight of
17. You have a test WEIGHTRANGE14-19, so it gets caught.
%TESTSFAILED% will show RVDNS, NOPOSTMASTER, SNIFFER, WEIGHTRANGE14-19.
But why show the weight test when the important information is why did
it get caught, because
But it may have been caught solely on the weight test. For example, if
you use the WARN action on REVDNS, NOPOSTMASTER, and SNIFFER, but use
the HOLD action on WEIGHTRANGE14-19, then it was the WEIGHTRANGE14-19
test that caused the E-mail to get caught.
Yes and no, the reason it got caught by
Does the %TESTSFAILED% variable work with the Subject action?
Steve
---
[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], and
type unsubscribe
Does the %TESTSFAILED% variable work with the Subject action?
Variables in the SUBJECT action were added to v1.35, but there is a glitch
that may prevent them from working until the next release.
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
.
Has anyone else mentioned this, or must I have something set up wrong?
Thanks,
Steve
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] %TESTSFAILED% variable
Does
Ok thats fine. Is there also a small bug in the custom blacklists? I am
pretty sure I have it set up right but mail is not being caught if it
doesn't come from the exact domain, ie:
I thought if I put azoogle.com in my blacklists.txt file that it would
catch childdomain.azoogle.com as well.
34 matches
Mail list logo
