RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Why should I need to upgrade when the problem is a bug. I didn't have any problems running the excellent version that I am running at present thank you so should there be a bug fix or do I need to get a service agreement. Let's see :-) _ Glen Harvy Aquarius Communications for all your Internet Needs. Phone 9977 3788 Fax 9977 3844 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ncl Admin > Sent: Tuesday, 4 January 2005 02:51 > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > Importance: High > > > At 07:59 AM 1/2/2005 +1100, you wrote: > >Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service agreements. > > Anyone that runs production software without service agreements gets what > they deserve. > --- > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Just an FYI, Barry did call me this afternoon, and while the exact approach that they would take wasn't shared, it was clear that he understood the general need. This has only become an issue for us because of the change in how things are released as interims were formerly plentiful, very quick to be published, and Scott had laid down the law concerning his unwillingness to provide documentation for interim releases. Not that long ago there was no such thing as a broadcast announcement (if I recall correctly), and only major issues (bugs and fixes for new important issues such as virus detection) were announced to the list. Now CPHZ has the resources to do all of these things better (broadcast notifications, better documentation, etc.), but this caught them at a stage where they had not yet developed a process to deal with such things, possibly not fully understood the implications, and of course the holiday helped to compound the issue. I was just trying to piece together my opinions in order to influence the decision as to how to implement this. Since they do look at feedback and at least Barry and Scott do monitor this list, I think it's important for people to indicate how they would like to see such things handled. If this was Ipswitch that we were talking about, our expectations would have been to hear virtually nothing until a week or two later when the hotfix came out, and if the issue was not so widespread, expecting a fix would be assuming too much in many cases. My expectation is that the response to the need will be calculated, but obviously not as timely as some of us might have expected. It's probably good that people haven't given up on having high expectations for them like we have for others :) Matt Bill Landry wrote: I agree with your comments, Matt. The other thing that has frustrated me is the fact that a bug will be fixed in an interim release and no mention of it will be made on the list until someone else complains about the problem on the list. Then there would come a response, "oh, that was fixed two months ago in interim release x.xx". When bugs are reported to Declude that affect how the product functions, Declude should make it a point to report those issues to its user base, or at least to the list. They should also announce immediately when a bug has been fixed so that we don't sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for a fix that's been available for two week or two months, or struggling with a problem that's been fixed. I held my tongue on this one, but was quite astounded that Declude did not send out a customer notification immediately after this bug was reported. Especially since this is a test that is enabled by default in the basic global.cfg. I would venture to guess that a lot of people have their tests pretty tightly configured, so that even a small weight addition could trigger hold, or worse, delete actions to be taken. User need to be notified right away about bugs like this so that they can decide if they need to make changes or not. Heck, we even had people thinking that there were problems with JunkMail plug-ins like Sniffer. Would have saved everyone time and frustration had a notification message been sent out immediately to all customers. The other thing that has bothered me about this particular situation is the rationalizing/excuses that have been posted as to why action was not taken sooner. I would feel much better if Declude would have just owned up to the fact that they dropped the ball on this one and promised to do better next time. Oh well, just my unsolicited opinion (they're a dime a dozen, you know)... Bill - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? R. Scott Perry wrote: The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the test. IMO, anything that has a measurable detrimental affect on all systems and all E-mail is very well within the bounds of what needs to be communicated from my perspective, even if it is only scored at one point in a default config. Not even a second thought. My issue was similar to Kami's where I was using the test is combinations to add extra weight, and the bug had the effect of making a false positive with a single test much worse. It would have taken me hours to clean everything up if I had not known about it until this morning. Even regarding other far more minor bugs; I've spent many wasted hours trying to diagnose what was going on with bugs that were already known to Declude. If such
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
It did affect us throwing weight higher on emails that would not have otherwise failed the Spam Header Filter. We hold on a relatively low weight of 13 compared to other configs I have seen posted with weights of 100, 200, etc. The bottom line is if I did not stroll in here on New Years and catch the posts about the bug, there would have been a lot more of my customer e-mails not getting through due to this. It was not that big a deal for us, and yes I took action and commented out, and now more Spam possibly getting through not reaching same weight we would hold or delete upon. So now I have to possibly adjust another test I guess to make up for it, until the fix? I am monitoring and hoping Sniffer will fill the gap if any. If I had not seen the posts, would the affect for us and our clients have been detrimental? Not really because most of my customers away for holidays too and we are not a huge firm with huge commercial clients. But... if I did have a huge commercial client base - the point of sharing the info and a little advise as a result does seem very prudent. It's not the product, it is communication to me the customer with better warning like "if this bug affects you, do the following until we get it fixed." I guess I am making a mountain out of a mole hill spoiled with great support and communication in the past. But remember this is a primary reason I have always "went out of my way" to praise Declude too! -Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 5:01 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: 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 the list. >2. A simple e-mail note to all customers ASAP stating "The spamheaders test >has a bug causing it to catch and add weight to every e-mail sent in 2005. >It is suggested that you comment it out or reduce (or remove) its weight to >avoid false positives. We are working on a fix and will post it to the >website as soon as possible" The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the test. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. -- CompBiz.Net scanned for Virus' --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I agree with your comments, Matt. The other thing that has frustrated me is the fact that a bug will be fixed in an interim release and no mention of it will be made on the list until someone else complains about the problem on the list. Then there would come a response, "oh, that was fixed two months ago in interim release x.xx". When bugs are reported to Declude that affect how the product functions, Declude should make it a point to report those issues to its user base, or at least to the list. They should also announce immediately when a bug has been fixed so that we don't sit around twiddling our thumbs waiting for a fix that's been available for two week or two months, or struggling with a problem that's been fixed. I held my tongue on this one, but was quite astounded that Declude did not send out a customer notification immediately after this bug was reported. Especially since this is a test that is enabled by default in the basic global.cfg. I would venture to guess that a lot of people have their tests pretty tightly configured, so that even a small weight addition could trigger hold, or worse, delete actions to be taken. User need to be notified right away about bugs like this so that they can decide if they need to make changes or not. Heck, we even had people thinking that there were problems with JunkMail plug-ins like Sniffer. Would have saved everyone time and frustration had a notification message been sent out immediately to all customers. The other thing that has bothered me about this particular situation is the rationalizing/excuses that have been posted as to why action was not taken sooner. I would feel much better if Declude would have just owned up to the fact that they dropped the ball on this one and promised to do better next time. Oh well, just my unsolicited opinion (they're a dime a dozen, you know)... Bill - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > R. Scott Perry wrote: > > > The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this > > was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to > > be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor > > test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the > > test. > > > IMO, anything that has a measurable detrimental affect on all systems > and all E-mail is very well within the bounds of what needs to be > communicated from my perspective, even if it is only scored at one point > in a default config. Not even a second thought. > > My issue was similar to Kami's where I was using the test is > combinations to add extra weight, and the bug had the effect of making a > false positive with a single test much worse. It would have taken me > hours to clean everything up if I had not known about it until this morning. > > Even regarding other far more minor bugs; I've spent many wasted hours > trying to diagnose what was going on with bugs that were already known > to Declude. If such information was available to me by list or by site > of known issues, I would certainly save myself time and also prevent > other issues from occurring that I wasn't aware of. Take for example > the Subject parsing bug that was discovered with the introduction of > Yahoo's Domain Keys. I had two other people report to me issues with my > GIBBERISHSUB filter because of this bug, and at first when presented > with it, I didn't realize that this was the bug that was reported on > this list until I looked at it for about 15 minutes and suddenly > remembered. So something as minor as the bug that was primarily > affecting only messages from Yahoo, and was mostly only causing issues > with a somewhat common custom filter, in fact had some effect. I'm > afraid that everyone running GIBBERISHSUB right now is scoring the > majority of messages from Yahoo because of this, a fact probably > completely overlooked at Declude when determining what to do with it. > > I think what is best is to allow us to determine what information is > useful and what isn't, but naturally within a reasonable limit. I > consider having access to brief descriptions of all known bugs upon > discovery to be highly valuable, and a time saver for myself as well as > something that will help me improve my QOS. I would prefer this > information to be 'pushed' to me in E-mail, but I would be happy with it > any way that I could get it. If you do decide to push it, you might > want to include the option to join a list for this purpose as part of a > more generalized announcement or in the footer for the listserv. I'll >
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
R. Scott Perry wrote: The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the test. IMO, anything that has a measurable detrimental affect on all systems and all E-mail is very well within the bounds of what needs to be communicated from my perspective, even if it is only scored at one point in a default config. Not even a second thought. My issue was similar to Kami's where I was using the test is combinations to add extra weight, and the bug had the effect of making a false positive with a single test much worse. It would have taken me hours to clean everything up if I had not known about it until this morning. Even regarding other far more minor bugs; I've spent many wasted hours trying to diagnose what was going on with bugs that were already known to Declude. If such information was available to me by list or by site of known issues, I would certainly save myself time and also prevent other issues from occurring that I wasn't aware of. Take for example the Subject parsing bug that was discovered with the introduction of Yahoo's Domain Keys. I had two other people report to me issues with my GIBBERISHSUB filter because of this bug, and at first when presented with it, I didn't realize that this was the bug that was reported on this list until I looked at it for about 15 minutes and suddenly remembered. So something as minor as the bug that was primarily affecting only messages from Yahoo, and was mostly only causing issues with a somewhat common custom filter, in fact had some effect. I'm afraid that everyone running GIBBERISHSUB right now is scoring the majority of messages from Yahoo because of this, a fact probably completely overlooked at Declude when determining what to do with it. I think what is best is to allow us to determine what information is useful and what isn't, but naturally within a reasonable limit. I consider having access to brief descriptions of all known bugs upon discovery to be highly valuable, and a time saver for myself as well as something that will help me improve my QOS. I would prefer this information to be 'pushed' to me in E-mail, but I would be happy with it any way that I could get it. If you do decide to push it, you might want to include the option to join a list for this purpose as part of a more generalized announcement or in the footer for the listserv. I'll bet that if made aware of the option, a large number if not most Declude admins would choose it. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
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 the SPAMHEADERS test, they would be performed. But nothing beyond that would occur. So if an E-mail would have failed the SPAMHEADERS test before, nothing different would happen now. Kami mentioned the "cascading effect", which was occurring because of combo tests (for example, a test that fails if both the SPAMHEADERS and ROUTING tests fail). However, that is by design (although the design, of course, does not assume that there will be false positives). I seem to have a fair amount of email winding up in our hold file that failed both our weight tests and an IP hold test. They should have been deleted based on the weight test, but are being held based on the IP hold list. Have you checked the Declude JunkMail log file to see what actions were taken on the E-mail? -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
On another note... has anyone seen any sort of (cascading?) effect from the SpamHeaders glitch? I seem to have a fair amount of email winding up in our hold file that failed both our weight tests and an IP hold test. They should have been deleted based on the weight test, but are being held based on the IP hold list. (Did I explain that in an understandable manner?) Maybe related? Maybe not?? Just a coincidence??? ~Joe --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses at HNB.com] --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Scott- As usual, the real problem was communications, not the problem itself. Even if it's a minor test, simply acknowledging the problem and letting all current users know - even if the only communication is "Here's a problem we've identified. We are working on it." - goes a log way toward soothing the user base. That is especially true here, where your users have users of our own, and especially when the failure results in false positives, as it did for me. -Dave - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 5:00 PM Subject: 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 the list. 2. A simple e-mail note to all customers ASAP stating "The spamheaders test has a bug causing it to catch and add weight to every e-mail sent in 2005. It is suggested that you comment it out or reduce (or remove) its weight to avoid false positives. We are working on a fix and will post it to the website as soon as possible" The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the test. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Well said. Best Regards Andy Schmidt H&M Systems Software, Inc. 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 http://www.HM-Software.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of marc catuogno Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 04:50 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? Scott, I have been and still am a very satisfied Declude customer. I wasn't looking for a faster fix, or an interim release, I didn't even want to complain, just: 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. 2. A simple e-mail note to all customers ASAP stating "The spamheaders test has a bug causing it to catch and add weight to every e-mail sent in 2005. It is suggested that you comment it out or reduce (or remove) its weight to avoid false positives. We are working on a fix and will post it to the website as soon as possible" I don't want to argue numbers or percentages or how significant the test is in scope of catching spam - 15% is significant enough should it cause an e-mail to be held or deleted. I would hate to have to tell someone that their sales lead is gone because of a program glitch. That's all. Maybe a group e-mail bugtrack @ d .com or something that people can subscribe to or something. I just know that I would've been pissed had I not checked the list and shut off the test and was never notified. Maybe I am spoiled by how proactive Declude has been in the past. Marc --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
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 the list. 2. A simple e-mail note to all customers ASAP stating "The spamheaders test has a bug causing it to catch and add weight to every e-mail sent in 2005. It is suggested that you comment it out or reduce (or remove) its weight to avoid false positives. We are working on a fix and will post it to the website as soon as possible" The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the test. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Scott, I have been and still am a very satisfied Declude customer. I wasn't looking for a faster fix, or an interim release, I didn't even want to complain, just: 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. 2. A simple e-mail note to all customers ASAP stating "The spamheaders test has a bug causing it to catch and add weight to every e-mail sent in 2005. It is suggested that you comment it out or reduce (or remove) its weight to avoid false positives. We are working on a fix and will post it to the website as soon as possible" I don't want to argue numbers or percentages or how significant the test is in scope of catching spam - 15% is significant enough should it cause an e-mail to be held or deleted. I would hate to have to tell someone that their sales lead is gone because of a program glitch. That's all. Maybe a group e-mail bugtrack @ d .com or something that people can subscribe to or something. I just know that I would've been pissed had I not checked the list and shut off the test and was never notified. Maybe I am spoiled by how proactive Declude has been in the past. Marc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:02 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: 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 how I would have handled it. I consider the SPAMHEADERS test to be a very minor test, as it did not catch a large amount of spam (about 8% when we last tested), and had a significant amount of false positives. As a result, we only counted SPAMHEADERS towards 15% of the default spam detection weight. The test can easily be commented out to prevent it from running. Yes, in the past, I could have come out with an interim version more quickly. However, it should also be noted that there was always a lot of debate about the interims; many people did not like them. And even so, I would have only come out with an interim for the latest version (in this case, a beta), which would not have provided any options for customers who can only run release versions. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Hi Scott: It is fine- when this happened I was out of the office and since we use a number of combo filters this one filter misbehaving triggered a lot of other tests which then had a cascade effect. Of course when I found out we had 100 messages tagged as spam which are were sent back to the addresses and now the test is commented.. But with combination filters it is no longer a single incident as it can have a cascading effect. Any news on the 2.0b update? Regards, Kami -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:02 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: 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 how I would have handled it. I consider the SPAMHEADERS test to be a very minor test, as it did not catch a large amount of spam (about 8% when we last tested), and had a significant amount of false positives. As a result, we only counted SPAMHEADERS towards 15% of the default spam detection weight. The test can easily be commented out to prevent it from running. Yes, in the past, I could have come out with an interim version more quickly. However, it should also be noted that there was always a lot of debate about the interims; many people did not like them. And even so, I would have only come out with an interim for the latest version (in this case, a beta), which would not have provided any options for customers who can only run release versions. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
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 how I would have handled it. I consider the SPAMHEADERS test to be a very minor test, as it did not catch a large amount of spam (about 8% when we last tested), and had a significant amount of false positives. As a result, we only counted SPAMHEADERS towards 15% of the default spam detection weight. The test can easily be commented out to prevent it from running. Yes, in the past, I could have come out with an interim version more quickly. However, it should also be noted that there was always a lot of debate about the interims; many people did not like them. And even so, I would have only come out with an interim for the latest version (in this case, a beta), which would not have provided any options for customers who can only run release versions. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I'm in the same situation. I would hope for some sort of free bug fix. Perhaps release bug fixed versions of a few old versions could work? -Dan At 03:19 PM 1/3/2005, you wrote: I think Jerry has this right. Both our Declude and IMail support agreements are currently lapsed. We were planning on renewing both in early 2005 when Ipswitch had their big fiasco over discontinuing IMail as a stand-alone program. So we plan on dropping IMail and we postponed renewing the Declude support contract. I'm sure that if we switch to SmarterMail that we'll renew the Declude contract, but that could be months out. In the meanwhile, we were happy with our current version of Declude until this bug popped up. Since this is a major bug, I consider Declude responsible. I'll be interested to see what they do. --- [This E-mail http://www.cayugacomputers.com/ccvds.html";>scanned for viruses 01/03/2005 16:07:01] --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
We are up-to-date with our support agreements way into 2005 and I am awaiting a fix. I am not sure I understand the talk here about forced license upgrade unless a customer support agreement has expired? 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! -Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Imail Admin Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 3:20 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? I think Jerry has this right. Both our Declude and IMail support agreements are currently lapsed. We were planning on renewing both in early 2005 when Ipswitch had their big fiasco over discontinuing IMail as a stand-alone program. So we plan on dropping IMail and we postponed renewing the Declude support contract. I'm sure that if we switch to SmarterMail that we'll renew the Declude contract, but that could be months out. In the meanwhile, we were happy with our current version of Declude until this bug popped up. Since this is a major bug, I consider Declude responsible. I'll be interested to see what they do. Actually, I could think of one compromise solution: release an update/fixed version, require a support contract for the download, but offer (for a limited time) a substantial discount on the support contract. Or, if you don't like that, then offer a short-term support contract (three months for one quarter of the usual price). I really am a big fan of Declude; I just don't like being forced into an upgrade. Ben BC Web - Original Message - From: "Jerry Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > I don't think that's fair for a bug like this. Declude has never been > presented as being a "time sensitive" licensed product. > > I know some of my old installs are still probably using older versions > without other issues. I've made my successors aware of this and it's up > to them now. > > There are a lot of folks out there that will be looking for an iMail > replacement, and may consider Smartermail/Declude, but won't if they feel > CPHZ is not doing right. CPHZ should release a 1.82 or a 1.8101 and make > it available for all licensed users. They would then get a "phone home" > version out to more users, and generate good will instead of ill will. > > I'm surprised the conspiracy theorists haven't chimed in already that this > is just a way to force an upgrade. I don't believe that, but some will be > thinking it. > > Jerry > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ncl Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:51 AM > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > > > > At 07:59 AM 1/2/2005 +1100, you wrote: > > >Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service > agreements. > > > > Anyone that runs production software without service agreements gets > what > > they deserve. > > --- > > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. -- CompBiz.Net scanned for Virus' --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I think Jerry has this right. Both our Declude and IMail support agreements are currently lapsed. We were planning on renewing both in early 2005 when Ipswitch had their big fiasco over discontinuing IMail as a stand-alone program. So we plan on dropping IMail and we postponed renewing the Declude support contract. I'm sure that if we switch to SmarterMail that we'll renew the Declude contract, but that could be months out. In the meanwhile, we were happy with our current version of Declude until this bug popped up. Since this is a major bug, I consider Declude responsible. I'll be interested to see what they do. Actually, I could think of one compromise solution: release an update/fixed version, require a support contract for the download, but offer (for a limited time) a substantial discount on the support contract. Or, if you don't like that, then offer a short-term support contract (three months for one quarter of the usual price). I really am a big fan of Declude; I just don't like being forced into an upgrade. Ben BC Web - Original Message - From: "Jerry Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > I don't think that's fair for a bug like this. Declude has never been > presented as being a "time sensitive" licensed product. > > I know some of my old installs are still probably using older versions > without other issues. I've made my successors aware of this and it's up > to them now. > > There are a lot of folks out there that will be looking for an iMail > replacement, and may consider Smartermail/Declude, but won't if they feel > CPHZ is not doing right. CPHZ should release a 1.82 or a 1.8101 and make > it available for all licensed users. They would then get a "phone home" > version out to more users, and generate good will instead of ill will. > > I'm surprised the conspiracy theorists haven't chimed in already that this > is just a way to force an upgrade. I don't believe that, but some will be > thinking it. > > Jerry > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ncl Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:51 AM > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > > > > At 07:59 AM 1/2/2005 +1100, you wrote: > > >Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service > agreements. > > > > Anyone that runs production software without service agreements gets > what > > they deserve. > > --- > > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
That's exactly what I have done. I am definitely seeing more spam as a result of this problem. If I knew they were planning to fix it in a day or two, I'd live with it. Since we did hear from Barry something to the effect of "an announcement will made Monday morning" I am waiting to make a decision whether to increase some other tests by a point or so to compensate. -d - Original Message - From: "Harry Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 1:21 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? Why not just set the SPAMHEADERS weight to zero in GLOBAL.CFG as a workaround until the problem is fixed by a new release? --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Why not just set the SPAMHEADERS weight to zero in GLOBAL.CFG as a workaround until the problem is fixed by a new release? --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I think somebody already mentioned it. -d - Original Message - From: "Jerry Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? I don't think that's fair for a bug like this. Declude has never been presented as being a "time sensitive" licensed product. I know some of my old installs are still probably using older versions without other issues. I've made my successors aware of this and it's up to them now. There are a lot of folks out there that will be looking for an iMail replacement, and may consider Smartermail/Declude, but won't if they feel CPHZ is not doing right. CPHZ should release a 1.82 or a 1.8101 and make it available for all licensed users. They would then get a "phone home" version out to more users, and generate good will instead of ill will. I'm surprised the conspiracy theorists haven't chimed in already that this is just a way to force an upgrade. I don't believe that, but some will be thinking it. Jerry - Original Message - From: "Ncl Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? At 07:59 AM 1/2/2005 +1100, you wrote: >Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service agreements. Anyone that runs production software without service agreements gets what they deserve. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I don't think that's fair for a bug like this. Declude has never been presented as being a "time sensitive" licensed product. I know some of my old installs are still probably using older versions without other issues. I've made my successors aware of this and it's up to them now. There are a lot of folks out there that will be looking for an iMail replacement, and may consider Smartermail/Declude, but won't if they feel CPHZ is not doing right. CPHZ should release a 1.82 or a 1.8101 and make it available for all licensed users. They would then get a "phone home" version out to more users, and generate good will instead of ill will. I'm surprised the conspiracy theorists haven't chimed in already that this is just a way to force an upgrade. I don't believe that, but some will be thinking it. Jerry - Original Message - From: "Ncl Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > At 07:59 AM 1/2/2005 +1100, you wrote: > >Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service agreements. > > Anyone that runs production software without service agreements gets what > they deserve. > --- > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
At 07:59 AM 1/2/2005 +1100, you wrote: >Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service agreements. Anyone that runs production software without service agreements gets what they deserve. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I am sure this was not intentional. However, since this is a serious bug, it will be intersting to see how CPH is going to handle the situation. Given the many versions out there a patch cannot do the job, and they cannot release a fixed exe for every version. Meaning the only way would be to upgrade to the yet to be released fix (1.82 or 2.01). Therfore, those who do not have a current service agreement will have to drop a test that is in the specs of the product they bought. Complex situation for both sides. Personaly, given the continuously evolving nature/area of email/virus/spam, i think an annual service agreement should be mendatory, in the license agreement, (like the sniffer folks do), provided they don't increase current prices, which are reasonable. otherwise, i can't see how CPH can survive, and survival is essential for all of us who own the product. A change of the buisness model is needed. - Original Message - From: "Glen Harvy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:59 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service agreements. _ Glen Harvy Aquarius Communications for all your Internet Needs. Phone 9977 3788 Fax 9977 3844 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry Sent: Sunday, 2 January 2005 04:36 To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? - Original Message - From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email direct to Scott > and Barry. Why run the test at all if you're going to set the weight to zero anyway - just comment out the test until it's fixed. I can see this causing some major problems for users that are not subscribers of this list, or who do not actively monitor it. I'm wondering if the only fix for this is a new declude.exe file? If that's the case, CPHZ has got their early New Year's work cut out for them... 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], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service agreements. _ Glen Harvy Aquarius Communications for all your Internet Needs. Phone 9977 3788 Fax 9977 3844 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry > Sent: Sunday, 2 January 2005 04:36 > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email > direct to Scott > > and Barry. > > Why run the test at all if you're going to set the weight to zero anyway - > just comment out the test until it's fixed. > > I can see this causing some major problems for users that are not > subscribers of this list, or who do not actively monitor it. I'm > wondering > if the only fix for this is a new declude.exe file? If that's the case, > CPHZ has got their early New Year's work cut out for them... > > 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], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: However, one would hope they would send a mass mailing out soon to all their customers notifying them of this issue. Agreed. This can cause widespread issues. Thankfully I only had a few false positives caused by this additional hit, and it was caught quickly and reported by people on this list. I know that I won't always be monitoring this list as intently, and I would appreciate very much announcements of such things, with a detailed description of the issue. The 1.81 release unfortunately came with a description that it was an "improvement" of the JPG virus detection instead of a "bug fix", but thankfully I already knew that the bug existed and that the release would fix it (otherwise I would have waited a few weeks before implementing the new release). Others might not have taken the release as being important based on the description provided. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I have it set to "ON" and I am experiencing the issue as well. I seem to recall the loosen spamheader options just tells it not to look at the Message ID portion of the header. Darrell --- Native SURBL functionality for Declude check out http://www.invariantsystems.com - Original Message - From: "marc catuogno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:52 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > Did anyone try "loosen spamheaders on"? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:36 PM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email direct to Scott > > and Barry. > > Why run the test at all if you're going to set the weight to zero anyway - > just comment out the test until it's fixed. > > I can see this causing some major problems for users that are not > subscribers of this list, or who do not actively monitor it. I'm wondering > if the only fix for this is a new declude.exe file? If that's the case, > CPHZ has got their early New Year's work cut out for them... > > 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], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > --- > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I would imagine this will require a change to the exe. I can't see how else that test would be implemented. Looking at the stock global.cfg SPAMHEADERS appears to be weighted as "3" so there may not be that much trauma associated with this "glitch". However, one would hope they would send a mass mailing out soon to all their customers notifying them of this issue. Darrell --- Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude And Imail. IMail/Declude Overflow Queue Monitoring, MRTG Integration, and Log Parsers. - Original Message - From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > - Original Message - > From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email direct to Scott > > and Barry. > > Why run the test at all if you're going to set the weight to zero anyway - > just comment out the test until it's fixed. > > I can see this causing some major problems for users that are not > subscribers of this list, or who do not actively monitor it. I'm wondering > if the only fix for this is a new declude.exe file? If that's the case, > CPHZ has got their early New Year's work cut out for them... > > 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], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Did anyone try "loosen spamheaders on"? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:36 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? - Original Message - From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email direct to Scott > and Barry. Why run the test at all if you're going to set the weight to zero anyway - just comment out the test until it's fixed. I can see this causing some major problems for users that are not subscribers of this list, or who do not actively monitor it. I'm wondering if the only fix for this is a new declude.exe file? If that's the case, CPHZ has got their early New Year's work cut out for them... 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], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
No, I missed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just sent it directly to Scott and Barry. Looks like urgent@ might not work anyway. -d - Original Message - From: "Bonno Bloksma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? Hi, I had a couple of false positives this morning caused in part by SPAMHEADERS apparently objecting to 2005 as an invalid year. When I checked my normal mail, everything I checked failed SPAMHEADERS. Time to disable the "SpamHeaders" test until this gets fixed. I set it to zero weight temporarily. Just did the same. I also sent an email direct to Scott and Barry. To the urgent@ account? Groetjes, Bonno Bloksma Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse? --- [E-mail scanned at tio.nl for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Just to remind myself to put it back in after they fix it, I guess... Looks like a change to the exe will be required. -d - Original Message - From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? - Original Message - From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email direct to Scott and Barry. Why run the test at all if you're going to set the weight to zero anyway - just comment out the test until it's fixed. I can see this causing some major problems for users that are not subscribers of this list, or who do not actively monitor it. I'm wondering if the only fix for this is a new declude.exe file? If that's the case, CPHZ has got their early New Year's work cut out for them... 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], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
- Original Message - From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email direct to Scott > and Barry. Why run the test at all if you're going to set the weight to zero anyway - just comment out the test until it's fixed. I can see this causing some major problems for users that are not subscribers of this list, or who do not actively monitor it. I'm wondering if the only fix for this is a new declude.exe file? If that's the case, CPHZ has got their early New Year's work cut out for them... 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], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Now this is real positive, one of the e-mails that a message is sent to when you send to urgent@ comes back as undeliverable. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists) > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:54 AM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > > Yep, I am also seeing it. > > John Tolmachoff > Engineer/Consultant/Owner > eServices For You > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bonno Bloksma > > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:07 AM > > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > > > > Hi, > > > > >>> I had a couple of false positives this morning caused in part by > > >> SPAMHEADERS > > >>> apparently objecting to 2005 as an invalid year. When I checked my > > >>> normal > > >>> mail, everything I checked failed SPAMHEADERS. > > > > >> Time to disable the "SpamHeaders" test until this gets fixed. > > > > >I set it to zero weight temporarily. > > > > Just did the same. > > > > > I also sent an email direct to Scott and Barry. > > > > To the urgent@ account? > > > > Groetjes, > > > > Bonno Bloksma > > Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse? > > > > --- > > [E-mail scanned at tio.nl for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > > --- > > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Yep, I am also seeing it. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bonno Bloksma > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:07 AM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? > > Hi, > > >>> I had a couple of false positives this morning caused in part by > >> SPAMHEADERS > >>> apparently objecting to 2005 as an invalid year. When I checked my > >>> normal > >>> mail, everything I checked failed SPAMHEADERS. > > >> Time to disable the "SpamHeaders" test until this gets fixed. > > >I set it to zero weight temporarily. > > Just did the same. > > > I also sent an email direct to Scott and Barry. > > To the urgent@ account? > > Groetjes, > > Bonno Bloksma > Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse? > > --- > [E-mail scanned at tio.nl for viruses by Declude Virus] > > --- > [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Hi, I had a couple of false positives this morning caused in part by SPAMHEADERS apparently objecting to 2005 as an invalid year. When I checked my normal mail, everything I checked failed SPAMHEADERS. Time to disable the "SpamHeaders" test until this gets fixed. I set it to zero weight temporarily. Just did the same. I also sent an email direct to Scott and Barry. To the urgent@ account? Groetjes, Bonno Bloksma Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse? --- [E-mail scanned at tio.nl for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I set it to zero weight temporarily. I also sent an email direct to Scott and Barry. -d - Original Message - From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch? - Original Message - From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I had a couple of false positives this morning caused in part by SPAMHEADERS apparently objecting to 2005 as an invalid year. When I checked my normal mail, everything I checked failed SPAMHEADERS. Using Declude 1.79i7. Were there any warnings on this? Is anybody else seeing it? Yep, seeing it here too, with version 1.81. Declude so far is reporting two SpamHeader codes: = Code: 480e. The E-mail failed the SPAMHEADERS test. This E-mail has a bad year in the Date: header. = Code: 480f. The E-mail failed the SPAMHEADERS test. This E-mail has a bad year in the Date: header. = Time to disable the "SpamHeaders" test until this gets fixed. 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], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
Hi, I had a couple of false positives this morning caused in part by SPAMHEADERS apparently objecting to 2005 as an invalid year. When I checked my normal mail, everything I checked failed SPAMHEADERS. Using Declude 1.79i7. Hmmm running 1.81 overhere and same problem. SPAMHEADERS on every mail I have checked. Were there any warnings on this? None that I know. Is anybody else seeing it? Yup. Groetjes, Bonno Bloksma Back up my hard drive? How do I put it in reverse? --- [E-mail scanned at tio.nl for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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 Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
- Original Message - From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I had a couple of false positives this morning caused in part by SPAMHEADERS > apparently objecting to 2005 as an invalid year. When I checked my normal > mail, everything I checked failed SPAMHEADERS. > > Using Declude 1.79i7. > > Were there any warnings on this? > > Is anybody else seeing it? Yep, seeing it here too, with version 1.81. Declude so far is reporting two SpamHeader codes: = Code: 480e. The E-mail failed the SPAMHEADERS test. This E-mail has a bad year in the Date: header. = Code: 480f. The E-mail failed the SPAMHEADERS test. This E-mail has a bad year in the Date: header. = Time to disable the "SpamHeaders" test until this gets fixed. 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], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
