Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Increase?

2007-08-03 Thread Darin Cox
We've saw about a 15% increase a few days ago, and it has stayed there. Bandwidth increase was significantly more than that, though. Took our primary mail server from 20-40% cpu to 50-80%. We just upgraded last night to deal with it. Darin. - Original Message - From: Pete McNeil

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam

2006-05-20 Thread John T \(Lists\)
Do not know why they would want to rewrite the message. They should add a test name for the condition and say it failed the test. I believe it fails a Declude Virus Vulnerability test. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam

2006-05-20 Thread Michael Thomas - Mathbox
John, Do not know why they would want to rewrite the message. They should add a test name for the condition and say it failed the test. I believe it fails a Declude Virus Vulnerability test. What test is that and in what version? That wouldn't be 4.x would it? Although, that would seem

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam

2006-05-19 Thread John T \(Lists\)
Yes, that looks to be what I have been seeing get through. John T eServices For You Seek, and ye shall find! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 12:41 PM To: Rick Baranowski

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam

2006-05-19 Thread Michael Thomas - Mathbox
Sandy, Shrug. Never felt the desire to run dependency walker on it. I said it was a guess. I said it was circumstantial. Maybe in the end, I was hoping it was some silly language limitation that they didn't know how to get around rather than think it was a bug or even a bad assumption on the part

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam box

2005-08-05 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
Gotta agree. The rblpolicyd functionality is rare at the free/low-cost price point, and new and untested even on *nix (though sa-exim has been able to do the same for Exim for a couple of years, a kind of weird latency if you ask me). Sandy, I'll hazard a guess that this module has

FWD: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through

2004-10-30 Thread Kim Premuda
-- Original Message -- From: Sheldon Koehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:12:11 -0700 It is obvious they are using disposable domain names. They come in flavors like gbzqrx.info and so on.

Re: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through

2004-10-30 Thread Darin Cox
$10 domain names don't put much of a dent in their profits. Darin. - Original Message - From: Kim Premuda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude JunkMail Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 1:34 AM Subject: FWD: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through

Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through

2004-10-28 Thread Sheldon Koehler
This is a good argument for the delayed-scan-and-deliver feature I suggested previously. The porn guys you are probably talking about we call the mad-lib pornsters. Every day or so they will come out with a brand new set of domains delivering a wide array of porn traffic. Actually, our robots

Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through

2004-10-28 Thread Darin Cox
PM they have huge bandwidth behind them so they get quite a bit of PM content out before the updated rules can go in place. You're not kidding about the bandwidth. There's a medium-sized hosting center in downtown Tampa that was an offshoot from one of the largest porn websites. Their content

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through

2004-10-28 Thread Mark E. Smith
This is a good argument for the delayed-scan-and-deliver feature I suggested previously. The porn guys you are probably talking about we call the mad-lib pornsters. Every day or so they will come out with a brand new set of domains delivering a wide array of porn traffic. Actually, our

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through

2004-10-28 Thread R. Scott Perry
Check my logic on this... For the first rule we would run the external filter DELAYSCANANDDELIVER. The external .exe checks the sender IP against the database and either issues exit code 0 (process) 1 (STOPALLTESTS) If the external .exe doesn't find an IP w/ proper timeset offset in the database

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review and Kill File

2002-01-30 Thread Chuck Schick
I do not know about version 7 of Imail but I do know that you have stop and restart the SMTP process in earlier versions for any additions to the control access list and I always assumed the same held true for the kill.lst. CJS -- Original Message --

Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program

2002-01-28 Thread David Barrett
] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:35 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program Delete, Insert, and Refresh keys will add to the program. I will add them soon. I am going to change the rules on picking up weight. I will document that carefully when I do

RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program

2002-01-28 Thread Tom Schwarz
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program Importance: Low I was setting up a networkpath path eg. \\123.123.123.123\imail for the log files. But There was a type-o so I got a runtime error. Now when I start the program