w.ute-sei.org/
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 6, 2005 4:53 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning // Whitelisted but not
Susan,
The double scanning seemed secondary to the pr
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan
DuncanSent: Monday, June 06, 2005 1:49 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning??
Im
resending this as I didnt get any replies.
Anyone??
-Original
Message-From:
[EMAIL
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Patterson
Sent: June 7, 2005 10:00 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning??
It looks like it should
have passed, http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/lookup.ch?name=ute-sei.orgtype=MX.
I would turn the declude
log level to High
Susan Duncan wrote:
That still
doesnt explain why
someone who is whitelisted still has some of their email caught.
That's not the issue, they aren't actually both happening at the same
time. It's being double scanned, and it is only being whitelisted when
it is being sent, but not
-destination
X-RCPT-TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: U
X-UIDL: 418092265
-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 7, 2005 10:42 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning // Whitelisted
Just a little follow up about this.
The first E-mail appears to be sent from your server in some sort of
automated fashion (denoted by the GSC extension on the Q file). These
are either postmaster messages, or some message created by calling
imail1.exe directly (probably some bulk-mail script
ROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 7, 2005
10:42 AM
To:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning // Whitelisted but not
Susan
Duncan wrote:
That still
doesnt
explain why someone who is whitelisted still has some of their email
caught.
two messages
which should have been whitelisted, get caught.
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 7, 2005 11:27 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning // Whitelisted but not
Just
I reported the false positive (being a good netizin) to MXRATE
(Alligate) and their automated reply included the following:
"Generally, the most common reason an IP address is falsely listed in the MXRate database is when one of your users forwards all their mail to an account on a server
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 7, 2005
11:27 AM
To:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning // Whitelisted but not
Just a
little follow up
about this.
The first E-mail appears to be sent from
Im
resending this as I didnt get any replies. Anyone??
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Duncan
Sent: May 31, 2005 9:35 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning??
Our own domain is
The MAILFROM test will only fail if Declude fails to find an A or MX
record for the domain in question. Since it exists, I would assume
that it is the result of something involving DNS. You should check
your DNS and make sure that your server is resolving properly, and that
it is the same DNS
PROTECTED]
http://www.ute-sei.org/
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 6, 2005 2:00 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning??
The MAILFROM test will
only fail if Declude fails
--Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 6, 2005
2:00 PM
To:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning??
The
MAILFROM test will
only fail if Declude fails to find an A or MX record for
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: June 6, 2005 4:53 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning // Whitelisted but not
Susan,
The double scanning seemed secondary to the problem at hand. You should re-read my message f
we just put our mail server ip in the hosts
file.
just a mention.
robert
- Original Message -
From:
Susan
Duncan
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
X-RBL-Warning // Whitelisted
I just received this this from a mail admin of another ISP, Anyone care to
comment...
Your outgoing mail server adds the header:
X-RBL-Warning: SPAM-NONE: Total weight between 0 and 4.
Our filter software scans incomming mesages for a line that starts
X-RBL-Warning:
This is used as an
I just received this this from a mail admin of another ISP, Anyone care to
comment...
Our filter software scans incomming mesages for a line that starts
X-RBL-Warning:
This is used as an indicator of spam. In your case it is saying that
this message is not spam, but our software only picks up
I am trying to learn more about Message-ID: header.
The Message-ID: header is used to uniquely identify an E-mail. The RFCs
require that it be present in an E-mail unless there is a good reason and
the consequences of not having it are understood.
I use server-side components such as
: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has
headers consistent with spam
I am trying to learn more about Message-ID: header.
The Message-ID: header is used to uniquely identify an E-mail. The RFCs
require that it be present
I saw the follow two X-RBL-Warning headers in an e-mail message:
X-RBL-Warning: ROUTING: This E-mail was routed in a poor manner consistent
with spam [6000410f].
X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam
[6000410f].
I was wondering what the 6000410f SPAMHEADERS
How do I add this header?
X-RBL-Warning: Weight of 10 exceeds the limit of 10.
(Don't see it in the manual)
It's listing in the Weighting system section of the Advanced
Configuration section of the manual. The default files include a WEIGHT10
test that includes that header.
So this is note is written to the headers when you use the WARN action with
the WEIGHT test?
That's correct.
(We use the SUBJECT action, so we don't get this warning in the headers?)
That's correct.
And what's with the subject line - I know I don't have reverse lookup.
Then you know why.
Hello all. We just got the reverse DNS capabilities delegated to us by
our upline connection (Sprint).
That looks good: http://www.DNSstuff.com/tools/ptr.ch?ip=208.34.50.132
shows that Sprint is referring reverse DNS queries to your nameservers. So
now the only piece left is to get your
This is what I mean. I thought the MAILFROM test simply checked for a
properly formatted email address in the mail from. I didn't realize it
checked for an MX record on the domain name.
It seems like I should bounce anything that fails the MAILFROM test?
That might not be such a good idea:
Perry
||Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:00 AM
||To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
||Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] X-RBL-Warning: Domain videoage1.com
||hasno MX/A records.
||
||
||
||This is what I mean. I thought the MAILFROM test simply checked for a
||properly formatted email address in the mail from. I
Anyone know of any good emails that might fail MAILFROM test???
Only good E-mails that are sent with a bogus return address. :)
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the
X-RBL-Warning: domain: whatever.com
What test is an email failing when the above is the warning?
That's most likely the MAILFROM test that is failing. That test will fail
if an E-mail arrives with a return address that is from a domain that does
not accept E-mail.
There's a slight chance,
28 matches
Mail list logo
