re: [Declude.JunkMail] List up ?

2006-12-14 Thread Michael Graveen
Sure is quiet. Mike From: IS - Systems Eng. \(Karl Drugge\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:49 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] List up ? List up ? Nothing in a day or so.. Karl Drugge

[Declude.JunkMail] Fw: [spf-announce] Website relaunch / Increasing SPF deployment and software support / The 2007 council elections

2006-12-14 Thread Darin Cox
FYI... Darin. - Original Message - From: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: SPF Announcements [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:34 AM Subject: [spf-announce] Website relaunch / Increasing SPF deployment and software support / The 2007 council elections -BEGIN

[Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
Just upgraded to 4.3.23. I'm getting a ton of stuff now that is being whitelisted. I have several users whitelisted TO but not the entire domain. This is not one of the users that is whitelisted TO. Suggestions? Here is the header info: Received: from SpeedTouch.lan [83.8.172.182] by

[Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
As a followup to this email, I have a question. I have a copy-all account for SEC purposes in which all incoming mail gets copied to. I put THIS account in the WHITELIST TO because we need to see a copy of EVERYTHING coming in, not just non spam emails. So, here is my question. If I whitelist

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: [spf-announce] Website relaunch / Increasing SPF deployment and software support / The 2007 council elections

2006-12-14 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi, 12.5% of all email I receive has SPF records. I fail 2.6% of all email based on SPF failing. 9.9% have matching SPF, 1/3 of those are spam. I have created my own RDNSBL that I use to match MAIL-FROM and REVDNS and give it the hold weight. This way I catch spammers who were nice enough to

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Darin Cox
Why are these being whitelisted?Did you turn on the Auto Whitelist feature? That whitelists sender addresses that appear in the recipient's webmail address book. It doesn't appear to be so in this case, but we've seen problems with users having their own address in their webmail address book,

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
Did you turn on the Auto Whitelist feature? That whitelists sender addresses that appear in the recipient's webmail address book. It doesn't appear to be so in this case, but we've seen problems with users having their own address in their webmail address book, resulting in whitelisting forging

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Darin Cox
MessageWe leave the Auto Whitelist feature on (our users use it), but just caution them against having their own address in the address book. Darin. - Original Message - From: Sharyn Schmidt To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: RE:

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Why are these being whitelisted?If you change your log level to high it will log the exact reason the message was whitelisted. Also, remember if one user on the email (even if they were BCC'ed) is whitelisted the whole message will be whitelisted. Darrell

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
If you change your log level to high it will log the exact reason the message was whitelisted. Also, remember if one user on the email (even if they were BCC'ed) is whitelisted the whole message will be whitelisted. What if all email is sent to a copyall account and I had the settings to

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Darrell \([EMAIL PROTECTED])
MessageOn that one I am not sure - I would bump your logs to HIGH and than we will be able to tell for sure. Darrell Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude And Imail. IMail/Declude Overflow

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
Here is the log for the message that really ticked me off. Sorry it's so long but this message was sent to a ton of ppl, and it was whitelisted for all of them. The ONLY account that has any reference to whitelist is the masterbkup account which is our copy all account in which we archive all

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Darin Cox
MessageYou're required to archive spam? I can't imagine that. I would remove the WHITELIST TO. Note that if any of the recipients are whitelisted, then all will effectively be whitelisted for that message. Darin. - Original Message - From: Sharyn Schmidt To:

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
We are required to archive ALL incoming mail. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not differentiate between legitimate mail and spam :) I did remove the whitelist to. I went back to using the masterbkup.junkmail file and just setting all actions to ignore. I just wanted to know what had caused this,

[Declude.JunkMail] SOX

2006-12-14 Thread Michael Cummins
SOX only affects publicly traded companies, right? Rumors abound right now about changes in the rules. -- Michael Cummins We are required to archive ALL incoming mail. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not differentiate between legitimate mail and spam :) --- This E-mail came from the

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SOX

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
SOX only affects publicly traded companies, right? As far as I know, right! --- 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

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Matt
I'm afraid that your reading of SOX compliance is not widely practiced. If you block an E-mail, and it is never received by a person covered by SOX, then there is no reason to archive it. SOX in fact essentially requires that spam and virus blocking services be utilized in order to help

[Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread William Stillwell
Does anybody know of a product (that doesn't cost a arm, and three legs) that will archive all email for a specific domain for x number of years? Imail CopyAll Will not work.. No way to orginize all the email, and I don't want to archive the spam... --- This E-mail came from the

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Darin Cox
MessageThat has to be a mistake. For example, if a company were to use an external filtering service, they would have no means of archiving spam that had been filtered out. Also, with spam currently at 90% of all incoming email, it's ludicrous to have to archive 10x the actual legitimate

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Chris Asaro
Question Authority.. Chris _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sharyn Schmidt Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:44 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted? shrug IF

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread Craig Edmonds
I know you said that catch all does not work but something I do for certain clients is make two email accounts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then I make a rule in Imail that sends a copy of all incoming to the incoming address and then a copy of the outgoing mail to the outgoing email

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread John T \(Lists\)
The Imail CopyAll account will work, along with Imail Rules on that account. John T eServices For You Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread William Stillwell
I will keep ya posted, We are looking into some third party products and other solutions. Your solution would work, however, But when given a request to have all of the email of a certain person for x months is not easy to do when you have to sift thru gigs of email. -Original Message-

[Declude.JunkMail] 8.22 to 2006 Upgrade

2006-12-14 Thread Chris Anton
Hi... Checked the archives, but didn't find anything definitive. What version should / need we be running to upgrade to 2006. Any special considerations? We are running Declude 2.0.6 Junkmail Pro (with sniffer), Virus Standard. Thanks -Chris --- This E-mail came from the

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread Sanford Whiteman
I would be interested in a paid solution though if there is one out there. We use Global Relay (www.globalrelay.com) for our regulated/public clients. They're really cool, customer service like you'd get from a boutique shop, but with real heavy-hitting systems. They simply charge by

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 8.22 to 2006 Upgrade

2006-12-14 Thread Matt
Chris, 3.x or 4.x will work with IMail 8.2+. Some have said that 1.x and 2.x works with the newer IMail, but there have also been many reports of issues, and it would make sense to upgrade both at the same time. I have been running a 4.x version for over 6 months, and after you tune the

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread Sanford Whiteman
... and it should be acceptable to the feds. Which feds? The regulatory agencies I know would scoff at such a solution. But the OP didn't mention this being done for external regulatory reasons, anyway. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread Matt
Brand it with a fancy name and they should be happy. IMail stores messages in an open format, and as long as you catch all of it, and archive it as required, that should be all that counts. Naturally I'm simplifying, but in reality, all of these other products are programmed by people too.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Matt
Sharyn, You might want to walk into his office, pick a discarded piece of junk postal mail out of his garbage and ask him why he doesn't have to keep his junk and you do :) Of course that might get you fired, but maybe there's some middle ground with an alternative approach that would allow

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sanford Whiteman
I'm afraid that your reading of SOX compliance is not widely practiced. If you block an E-mail, and it is never received by a person covered by SOX, then there is no reason to archive it. You're correct. The goal of e-mail archival for public companies is not to create an audit

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?

2006-12-14 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
LOL thanks Matt This is surprising to me because he is normally right about everything. (and he doesnt even gloat about it) Guess I've gotten so complacent, I don't even bother to question what he says, unless it's something I know for sure that is wrong. -Original Message- From:

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread Sanford Whiteman
Brand it with a fancy name and they should be happy. Who should be happy? IMail stores messages in an open format, and as long as you catch all of it, and archive it as required, that should be all that counts. Well, it's not. Maybe it should be, but that's immaterial. Naturally

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote: Unlike... um, anyone on this list, it seems... I know firsthand what SEC and NASD think of homegrown compliance solutions. That's why you pay someone else to do it and insist that they slap on a fancy name like Perfect Super Uber E-mail Compliance Archive System. But

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Message Storage

2006-12-14 Thread Sanford Whiteman
Unlike... um, anyone on this list, it seems... I know firsthand what SEC and NASD think of homegrown compliance solutions. That's why you pay someone else to do it and insist that they slap on a fancy name like Perfect Super Uber E-mail Compliance Archive System. If it's hosted

[Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Discussions

2006-12-14 Thread John T \(Lists\)
Please, no one take this the wrong way, it is only meant in fun: I actually miss the twice annual entertaining discussions on the Imail forum between Scott and Len with Sandy added for spice. Popcorn anyone? ;-) John T eServices For You Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Discussions

2006-12-14 Thread Kevin Bilbee
Hear,Hear. That was great entertainment. Kevin Bilbee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T (Lists) Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:03 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Discussions

2006-12-14 Thread Sanford Whiteman
I actually miss the twice annual entertaining discussions on the Imail forum between Scott and Len with Sandy added for spice. Ah, olden tymes... me, I'm just waiting for the final showdown with BRUCE BARNES. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Discussions

2006-12-14 Thread Darin Cox
Have you been eating some slightly pungent, soggy cornflakes, Sandy? You seem to be spoiling... g Darin. - Original Message - From: Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John T (Lists) declude.junkmail@declude.com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:49 PM Subject: Re:

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Discussions

2006-12-14 Thread Sanford Whiteman
Have you been eating some slightly pungent, soggy cornflakes, Sandy? You seem to be spoiling... g Well, I did post that *here*, which was pretty cowardly! --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated

[Declude.JunkMail] Interesting ORF stats

2006-12-14 Thread John T \(Lists\)
I have 3 gateway servers running IIS with ORF. These are my MX records for all my domains. ORF has identified and blocked 71% of incoming email on my primary gateway. ORF has identified and blocked 81% of incoming email on my secondary gateway. (Interesting in that my primary and secondary carry