Scott,
I know this issue is known to you, but I'm uncertain as to if IMail has
taken ownership of the error yet. Every time that SMTP is stopped and
started, spam tends to slip through our system (Declude not called).
I'm on 8.05, and the same thing happened with 7.15, in fact this was one
I know this issue is known to you, but I'm uncertain as to if IMail has
taken ownership of the error yet. Every time that SMTP is stopped and
started, spam tends to slip through our system (Declude not called).
I'm on 8.05, and the same thing happened with 7.15, in fact this was one
of the
Hi;
I visited the
following links and they both go to Yahoo.
X-Note: Server Name: mail.mr-ink.infoX-Note:
SMTP Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]X-Note: Reverse DNS
IP: (timeout) [207.104.229.195]
I was about to add
the email to our blacklist considering the number of spam we have received from
Kami,
I would have to guess NO
Fritz
Frederick P. Squib, Jr.
Network Operations/Mail Administrator
Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg
http://www.wpa.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\- against microsoft attachments
---
Registrant:
The number of white list address entries in my GLOBAL.CFG file is
growing; many customers using broken clients, or automated responses
that look like spam.
I have this entry in my GLOBAL.CFG:
MRPBADADDR fromfileC:\IMail\Declude\BADADDRESS.TXT x 20 0
Is there any reason I couldn't
Owned by PacBel, assigned to E
Hosting:
whois -h whois.arin.net
207.104.229.128[Querying whois.arin.net][whois.arin.net]Pac Bell
Internet Services PBI-NET-2 (NET-207-104-0-0-1)
207.104.0.0 - 207.105.255.255E Hosting, Inc SBC207104229128031003
(NET-207-104-229-128-1)
207.104.229.128 -
These are both from different RR mail servers, obviously from zombies,
but there's no payload. This is unlikely to be an error in the
spamware's output, and that makes me think that they might just be doing
this to cause problems with spamtrap connected RBL's (a rapidly growing
problem).
That's what we do and it works well. I believe it's the recommended means
of whitelisting, by negative weighting instead of explicit whitelisting. It
also addresses the 200-limit for whitelisting.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Bud Durland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Declude List [EMAIL
Darin,
As you may be aware but in case not:
If you are using interim releases you can whitelist in a filter file
so there is no 200 cap; another thing is if you use filters instead
of fromfiles you can use the SKIPIFWEIGHT/MAXWEIGHT/MINWEIGHT
processor saving switches.[The latter feature I
Pac
Bell was eaten by SBC who merged/partnered with Yahoo.
Kevin
Bilbee
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Bill
LandrySent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:49 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Is this
Yes, Nick. I am aware... what I was saying is that putting the whitelist
entries in a separate file addresses, or bypasses, the 200 cap in the
Global.cfg.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Nick Hayer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:54 AM
Hi;
Look at the
following spam..
Kami
==
Hello, Thank you
for registration on our board - http://www.carderportal.c=om
Your Login $
Password:Login: User129Password: IkS9s1c
In our site you
will find:Spam Hosting - from 20$ per mounth.Fraud Hosting -
R. Scott Perry wrote:
The first question: Are the E-mails in question addressed to multiple
users, one or more of whom have spam filtering enabled (in which case
the actions are being taken due to those other recipients)?
That was one of the first things I looked for (and should have
Scott,
Are you aware of any issues related to filter files in which the log reports
and weights against a line in the filter, however, it was the line below or above it
that should have got triggered?
For example, lets stay that line 39 states:
BODY 5
Are you aware of any issues related to filter files in which
the log reports and weights against a line in the filter, however, it was
the line below or above it that should have got triggered?
For example, lets stay that line 39 states:
BODY 5 contains
Scott,
Should I run the latest interim release to fix this issue? Just had a few
upset customers, thanks,
Keith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wed 2/11/2004 8:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Should I run the latest interim release to fix this issue? Just
had a few upset customers, thanks,
Declude JunkMail won't handle the situation incorrectly, except for
reporting a line number that is different than the one you might
expect. Declude JunkMail won't use the wrong line in
17 matches
Mail list logo
