make sure that you run the updater just to make sure that you have the
latest and greatest.
Error 5 according to F-Prot is "Program terminated with ^C or ESC."
Matt
David Dodell wrote:
Just installed the new version of F-Prot c ... now my log is showing
the following:
02/2
ng these
lines, or along some other path would help him determine where he
should focus his efforts. I would prefer that he leave full MIME
parsing for the 2.0 release :)
Matt
Gene Head wrote:
Matt,
Do
you have any ideas
how I could improve on this?
I
have sp
catch most, especially the legitimate ones.
Matt
Gene Head wrote:
Scott,
I came up with this filter to trigger on emails with attachments with a
.zip extension. I created a file called ziptest and added it into the
global.cfg file as a filter named zipper.
Ziptest.txt
# Zip test
HEADERS
me and/or the list. If you
create a text file with just the base64 code in it and zip it up, it
should be no harm to anyone and it will allow us to study it.
Here's what Mcafee says about it.
http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=description&virus_k=101062
Thanks,
Matt
Qbc230b2500aa8d4f Deleting E-mail with virus!
02/29/2004 23:29:32 Qbc230b2500aa8d4f Scanned: CONTAINS A VIRUS [MIME:
2 23524]
02/29/2004 23:29:32 Qbc230b2500aa8d4f From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [outgoing from
151.198.155.141]
02/29/2004 23:29:32 Qbc230b2500aa8d4f Subject: Rena
Matt
Scott,
Can I have a million dollars???
:)
R. Scott Perry wrote:
We now have a new interim release 1.78i8 of Declude Virus Pro at
http://www.declude.com/interim that will look for invalid .bat, .com,
.pif, and .scr files, and will treat them as vulnerabilities. It is
expected that this wil
EXE
BANEZIPEXE
BANNAME DELTETED0.TXT
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Dec
clude isn't parsing
this correctly from the config file???
I think it's worth a quick look.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I apologize for the flood of emails to you as I know your time
is precious. However, I pulled the following that BANZIPEXTS and
BANEZIPEXTS was added
Keith Johnson wrote:
Matt,
Is yours working with the TAB, I'll try anything?
Yes, mine is working.
It's a shot in the dark, but here's my Virus.cfg attached as a text file
with the only modification being that my CODE was removed. You will
definitely want to customize the
of us administrators plus it stops needless notifications to and from
forged addresses.
Matt
Gene Head wrote:
Mitch,
You can modify the notification emails to skipp virus' that are known to forge the senders address. In the Declude subdirectory you will find files with a .eml extension.
this is justified IMO, though I would prefer better
categorization of such things in SpamCop.
Matt
Paul Navarre wrote:
I just got a SpamCop report about one of my mail servers. Upon looking at the report,
it appears
that they are complaining about a "Undeliverable Mail" message.
It
in the archives. Unless you monitor this group regularly,
it is good practice to search the archives before posting a new
question. Understandably, the search function in the archives kind of
sucks.
Matt
bill.maillists wrote:
Scott,
Can you shed some light on this?
Thanks,
Bill
--
identified
If others can agree on the best switches, this should probably be added
to the Declude Virus manual.
Matt
Matt wrote:
The 32-bit version of AVG won't work because it doesn't return result
codes which Declude needs to take action. I E-mailed them about a
month
I'd say that this is definitely a lot faster to process at least, and I
no longer am seeing NTVDM in Task Manager, typically achieving over 10%
of my processing per call, no sign of avgscan.exe showing up at all.
Check out the time stamps:
- 16-bit AVG as Scanner 2 -
03/04/2004 06:38:
product like Sniffer. Note that not everyone
uses both products on the same machine, or even in that order, so this
isn't a universal implementation, and I'm not asking for it to happen
either.
Matt
CompuLogics.Net Admin wrote:
Just an FYI Update for Declude Virus users that are
character difference between normal zips and password protected ones.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
That is exactly why I suggested scanning for file types instead of
extension. I think Scott mentioned that they need to include full MIME
decoding before something like that would be possible
/07/2004 17:37:53 Qa43c661500982fd2 Scanned: CONTAINS A VIRUS
[Prescan OK][MIME: 2 106748]
03/07/2004 17:37:53 Qa43c661500982fd2 From: ariearazi@example.com.mx
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [outgoing from 148.233.93.6]
03/07/2004 17:37:53 Qa43c661500982fd2 S
at can be tracked in combination
for a positive hit. I would imagine that not all such viruses will
have highly reliable patterns, though most will.
Matt
marc catuogno wrote:
If you want I can send it to you, it isn't important but I found it curious.
All I know is it is a virus, it i
tally disappear.
Seems like SKIPIFFORGING was really intended to handle bounces to the
sender and not to the receiver by the way it is being applied.
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
SWEN is not
known to be forging. Every one
that I have seen came from the sender that was i
Just to clarify. Swen forges the From address, but not the Mail From
address.
I'm reevaluating my choice to only send recipient notices. I may just
change to sender notifications only with SKIPIFFORGING.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Yes, Swen forges.
FWIW, we haven't yet see
Search the archives. There are about 300 posts on the subject from the
last week.
Matt
terry ip wrote:
Hi All,
Desktop Norton caught but declude didn't. I'm using Declude 1.75 + F-prot
3.14a with the latest virus pattern. Anyone have the same problem as
I'm? or
any cure
in the dark a
bit about this.
Any thoughts?
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declu
paste a hit for
NetSky.J to the list.
Matt
03/12/2004 14:55:04.292 Q158a0c4c0272caa5 Declude Virus Pro Registered
03/12/2004 14:55:04.292 Q158a0c4c0272caa5 Starting locality check
(sender=carcitydirect.com; nr=2 ca=off).
03/12/2004 14:55:04.292 Q158a0c4c0272caa5 CL Opening
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\so
ame IP
address, 64.80.8.238.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
When running multiple scanners it would sure be great if one of the
scanners scores
a hit the other scanners do not run. I have seen this mentioned
before and wanted to
just bring it up again...
The rationale for using them all is so that
don't grep because I have this crutch, though it is not as
powerful.
Matt
Nick wrote:
On 12 Mar 2004 at 15:41, Matt wrote:
FYI, yesterday in a single 13 1/2 minute period, F-Prot tagged 145
NetSky.L's and AVG tagged 105 NetSky.L's.
Matt - How did you get
Remove the "nobody" alias and IMail will reject all invalid addresses
during the SMTP envelope.
Matt
Rick Davidson wrote:
As a long time anti-spam combatant and Declude user I am seeing something I
am interpreting as another way spammers are exploiting us. The problem with
this s
reatly. Note that I don't currently
use this application, though I am preparing to because of the need to
not have a secondary MX accept every last piece of E-mail.
Matt
Rick Davidson wrote:
I should have been more clear, I use gateways in from of Imail peer groups
neither can use the nob
Turns out it was, and this also makes sense. Outlook only munged the
name and not the file. Here's the base64 code for the spacer image
along with the link and JavaScript is used to generate arguments
appended to the link:
- Actual Attachment (GIF) -
Content-Type: application/octet-st
I've only seen two of these so far, and according to McAfee, over 90%
of the hosts have been shut down:
http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=description&virus_k=101108
-- Update March 18th 2004 06:45 PST --
The majority of the 590 IP addresses seen have been closed down. At the
time
ithin archives"
Maybe this is an advance? Maybe it combines too many things under one
result code and isn't useful since Declude already gives us some
capabilities here? If anyone tests this stuff out, please share.
Matt
Adrian Titei wrote:
I thought that these notes for the last 2 rel
I've found Declude JunkMail on my system tends to catch most all of
the undetected variants that slip through in normal ZIP files early on.
Matt
Greg Little wrote:
How will we block a virus like Bagle.Q that does not use an "auto run"
vulnerability?
There's still no attac
up
on the issues and working around them as they appear.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
Perhaps Pete from Sniffer could assign a new Message Sniffer Result Code just for these heuristics.
We could then assign a hold based on this specific result code.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress
This didn't make it through the first time, so I am sending it along
again without the content that probably tripped the filters.
Matt
Original Message
Bill,
IPLINKED is of course a custom filter and not a standard feature of
Declude. That filter would score poin
Virus log file snippet??? That helps. Have you viewed the source of
the message?
Could have been a zero byte file. I've seen a lot fo these with Netsky,
though I thought they were all just empty zips.
Matt
Rodney Bertsch wrote:
If this has been covered in the list please give
It looks like it didn't detect an attachment. I think the standard
procedure is to send the full source of the message to virustrap [at]
declude [dot] com and ask Scott to take a look at it. Sending to this
list wouldn't be advised for obvious reasons.
Matt
Rodney Ber
ONLYSENDIF that advises the sender about how to turn
this off in Outlook/Outlook Express, and possibly other mail clients if
supported. I may also take that route.
Matt
Jeff Kratka wrote:
Scott,
What is the Partial Vulnerability that Declude Virus is picking up. I have
a customer asking me w
per handling by IMail).
Run don't walk :) All IMO of course.
Matt
Johan Driesmans wrote:
Hi,
We
recently upgraded iMail from v7.07 to v8.05
We
noticed that iMail also has an anti-spam feature.
We
where planning a licence upgrade from declude anti-virus to junkmai
stablish F-Prot's time as being the
control.
I'm primarily interested in Kaspersky, ClamAV and McAfee, in that order,
though I'm welcome to suggestions for other products that don't prohibit
command line scanning of E-mail in their licenses.
Anecodotal e
ptimal.
Thanks,
Matt
Adrian Hauri wrote:
AVG takes about 4 seconds to fire up the AV Engine and scan. I'm running the
16bit version 6 of AVG.
I would recommend you to use McAfee. I use version 4.32 for more than a year
now and it is as fast as F-Prot.
Also it was the first and only AV
nd is generous enough
to share what they have learned.
Matt
Brad Morgan wrote:
The announcement of IMail 8.1 adds another anti-virus option using
BitDefender and a quick scan of the Declude Virus Manual shows an entry for
BitDefender.
Does anyone have any experiences with BitDefender as a scann
eed, efficiency, and reporting
capabilities, there doesn't seem to be any good choices. The fact
though that F-Prot spanks everyone suggests that even AVG and McAfee
have a lot of room for improvement.
Matt
--
=
MailPur
If yo ushow me how to set up your side of things, I'll show you how to
keep the daemon running :)
Matt
Terry Fritts wrote:
ClamAV...1.0 seconds...2.303%...100.000%
Charles posted on this a while back.
Run clamd and link to clamdscan.exe (rather
ing. I suppose this could be done
by having a before and an after definition instead of just a before.
Terry, if you could explain the demime thing, that would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt
Charles Frolick wrote:
I never updated after I posted that. I need to find a way to start and
che
ks to SKIPIFWEIGHT)
despite the lower volume, and tests like file size can be used to
defeat expensive tests that aren't likely to be of use in such E-mail
by using handler scripts and the new TESTSFAILED filter element.
Matt
Terry Fritts wrote:
Terry, if you could explain the demime
Doug,
I'm not sure about the NOMEM option, but I verified several months ago
that while NOBOOT isn't listed, fpcmd.exe will scan the boot sectors
unless you use that switch. You should definitely use both of these
switches.
Matt
Douglas Cohn wrote:
First of all I am a pu
is unzipping whatever is being sent and then leaving
the file behind. Declude of course is calling the file 1_1.exe.binhex
and not just 1_1.exe like the actual file that is being left behind.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I've seen this twice now with the same exact circumstances so I
t
in the sig)
called !YDIRECTED.
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
Email Admin wrote:
Hello
Our Mail server recevie
ually everything that slips through before definitions are updates,
ends up getting caught by a good JunkMail config. It can be very time
consuming though, especially if you enjoy it too much :)
Matt
Douglas Cohn wrote:
Thanks
I was thinking about adding the
rule as well but also as
are of any NDR's that are
getting through your setup, i.e. ones that don't contain the headers.
Thanks,
Matt
System Administrator wrote:
on 5/6/04 10:10 AM, Douglas Cohn wrote:
Why are we looking for the beginning of an IP address?
Our users were re
they have added "conservative" detection of
encrypted zip files, and this capability might be the cause. Maybe
there are some new switches?
Matt
Butch Andrews wrote:
After last nights update for AVG7, for the first
time I was required to re-boot. Since then it appears that t
Today I found that AVG had crashed on my server and it was causing the
scanner to time out most of the time that Declude called it, leading to
a buildup of vir directories. The AVG interface was showing no
components installed. A reboot fixed that problem.
I then ran a manual update and foun
I think you jumped one hop too low and grabbed his client IP. His
server IP is 12.17.162.191 and it checks out just fine and matches his
A and MX records as well. There are no problems there.
Matt
Ncl Admin wrote:
No it isn't.
Reverse DNS for 172.16.2.103
Generat
Do you have a BANNAME entry for that one?
Matt
Markus Gufler wrote:
I believe the spaces in the BANNAME was fixed in 179i6 and higher.
I have successfully blocked "Deleted Attachment"
I'm running 1.79i7 now and messages containing an attachment like &q
f having
them tell you to turn them off for their account, in which case they
might not realize that a legitimate message was blocked.
Maybe that all makes sense?
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
Hi,
The
documentation shows that the
bannotify.eml file send mail back
I've been seeing these for almost a week I believe. They appear to be
damaged versions of know viruses, delivered with MIME headers but no
code.
If you search the archives, you should be able to find lots of
discussions about banned extensions.
Matt
Jim Matuska (by way of R. Scott
f my total
traffic from Joe-Job and AV NDR's without contributing to it with my
own system.
Thanks,
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
re from new undetected viruses
during the first few hours of an outbreak and with Declude's new
vulnerability detection, they should be much less common now.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Hi Matt,
Here's how we handled the issue.
Set postmaster and abuse aliase
e arrested that German teenager :)
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
Declude Virus and F-Prot reported
X-Declude-Virus: Detected [Partial Vulnerability].
This is an e-mail that has been cut into 5 part and it has a PDF
attached to it.
--=_NextPart_000_0019_01C4494C.0AFFE0A0
Content-Type: applicati
mind that I am stabbing in the dark.
Matt
Serge wrote:
Strange...
hi all
urgent help needed
I have imail1 client window ("create
mail message") pop up on my server with all kind of real and strange
addresses in the TO: and CC: Fields.
The windows remains ope
ly advised.
Matt
serge wrote:
Strange...
i know imail1 is a command line
mailer
but how do i find what i causing the
imail 1 window to be open and filed with all these adresses ?
see attached gif
-
Original Message -
From:
Darin Cox
To:
I just verified that AVG has been throwing this error all day long on
my server. Errors were being delivered so I guess there was little
harm so long as F-Prot was also working. Has anyone contacted AVG yet
about this?
Thanks,
Matt
bill.maillists wrote:
Same here. I've disable
s of
your version and your desire for specificity.
Matt
Jeff Maze wrote:
Beginning using the banned extension option with Declude (see virus.cfg).
Then any attachment with a .SCR or whatever is blocked at the server level
and the user doesn't see it. This is the way I have our server confi
Please let's move on from this discussion.
Thanks,
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
---
[This E-mail was scanned for virus
nlargement guy that sends many messages.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Message
Other than the firewall/router - doesn't
their SMTP server application (e.g., like IIS) have the ability to
restrict inbound connections to certain IP ranges.
We had a similar issue with one of my relay
t.
I can provide log snippets as well as the contents of this vir
directory if you need that also. This is only a minor nuisance that I
see about 5-10 times a month and nothing actually gets blocked that
shouldn't, although I would imagine there is a possibility that it
could be a potent
formation on the daemon's Window's support and stability,
please chime in.
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
---
[This E-mail
file
viruses, encrypted or otherwise. They did however throw in a switch
for detecting encrypted archives, but I haven't bothered to test that
out because of the above.
Systems running AVG alone are quite vulnerable.
Matt
Kami Razvan wrote:
Hi;
For
the past 2+ weeks I see AVG
users without a practical option.
I can't claim perfection, but rule #1 is to deliver the good E-mail,
rule #2 is to block the bad. That will never change for me.
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
Matt, even though F-Prot or AVG may not have been catching them (I use both)
b
e plastic sheets and duct tape away for the
time being :)
Matt
marc catuogno wrote:
What do you guys think of this?
http://antivirus.about.com/od/virusdescriptions/a/atakb.htm
I've forwarded it to all my users, maybe they will take their computer
security more seriously.
Marc
---
[This
Goran,
Are you running any other software or hardware that might be inspecting
these messages? The EXE response doesn't seem very Declude'ish.
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
I have Virus Pro latest interim release 179i8.
I have BANEXT EXE and BANEXT EZIP in my config file. I do not h
Goran,
Change the REPORT line for your second scanner (McAfee) to the following:
REPORT2Found the
If you add a space following the word "the" it will also take care of
the space. You can do the same for REPORT1 as well to get rid of the space.
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote
Thanks for pointing that out. I have yet to come across that issue
after migrating to McAfee only a few days ago (because AVG doesn't want
to recognize their problem after multiple E-mails, which is a departure
from the past).
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hm,
I recommend AGAINS
AVG, or if
that just simply isn't an option for the command line scanner anymore.
If you use this switch, it will break AVG in versions 2.51+
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
They didn't provide a link to it. I would imagine that you can access
it through the same page that you access the registered full versions
of their software, but that requires a serial number to access. I
didn't check so I'm not sure it's there.
Matt
Rober
other banned extensions, is the presumeably best work-around? If not
that, then custom filters in Declude?
I'm seeing a fair number of MyDoom.M (F-Prot)/MyDoom.N(McAfee), but no
MyDoom.O that the scanners have picked up on. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Ma
Would you like for me to E-mail it to you?
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
Well, that
is the problem on that one
server. Even running the manual update, which is using updater.exe, it
is
saying it is updated. I will probably do a restart on the server
tonight and
try
. You can however see what types of files lie within such a file
and depending on your version, you can either ban all of them, or just
ban the ones that contain files with one of your banned extensions in it.
Matt
Venkateswarlu Swarna wrote:
Hi Guys,
Please through some light on this.
-
s are creating regular issues that require attention, and
I'm sure that I'm not nearly catching them all. Better granularity
would be appreciated and is often requested, but I know better than to
expect that tomorrow.
Thanks,
Matt
--
===
d about turning this stuff off. Are file vulnerabilities
tied to the same switch for vulnerability detection?
Yes.
That's very unfortunate. Please consider the ability to at least turn
these off and on seperate from the other vulnerabil
. Besides, there is no open source Mozilla 3.0.
I'll send the full source in a follow-up off list.
Barry will earn big points from me if he forces you to change the way
Declude handles granularity in vulnerability checks :)
Thanks,
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I found a false positive block
't be
protecting you from viruses in zip files, though this might not be a big
deal if you have 2 scanners configured.
Matt
Marcel Sangers wrote:
In my logfiles I find someting like:
08/10/2004 19:26:59 Q055786ca007cc13b Could not find report file
D:\IMAIL\spool\D055786ca007cc13b.vir\report.txt.
at all JS/
viruses don't need notifications.
Ok, back to hibernation for me :)
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
I received one of those as well (from a different domain) and explained
thanking for the information and to remember that it takes time to fully
understand what a virus do
nt to have to start scanning JPEG's and wasting a ton of
additional resources to do so.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Unfortunately this is from Microsoft's main web page, just click on the
"Critical Update" in the upper right corner of the page.
I'm still trying to figure
D]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2004 20:51:11.0635 (UTC)
FILETIME=[10876E30:01C49CF8]
I can't find any descriptions for the exploit on the F-Prot site nor on
Google.
Thanks,
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
x27;s are one of the few worst-case scenarios.
Fingers crossed, hoping that the high school kids are all busy with
school for now.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
> Without blocking all .JPG files, nothing. The problem is that
there is a
> lack of information on how to detect such .JPG's.
generally smart enough to make my
own decisions, or at least fully willing to take responsibility for
them :)
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
This looks like a clear explanation to me:
18.3 Outlook 'Blank Folding' Vulnerability: This vulnerability occurs when
there is a line
PG files, and intercepting such files for scanning prior to display in
Internet Explorer could drive many machines into the ground in terms of
performance. Shame on Microsoft.
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
es reality, but I would prefer
to be a step ahead on something this obvious.
Thanks,
Matt
marc wrote:
installed 1.80 declude virus (restart imail smtp) and sending the
infected JPEG jpegcompoc.zip (http://www.gulftech.org/?node=downloads)
it was not automatically detect and goes trough, u
hey
typically don't handle the files directly from the Internet, and most
of course aren't using Microsoft's code for this. I do a lot of
graphic design work and haven't found a non-MS app yet that had a
vulnerable version of GDI on all of the machines that I own.
Matt
Sanford
ue to wait patiently since I don't expect miracles to happen
overnight, but I would really, really appreciate it if you could raise
the priority of when to allow us to turn these all off and on individually.
Thanks,
Matt
--
=
MailPure cus
oduce something that Declude could be coded to support (provided that
Scott is willing of course).
Matt
Bill Landry wrote:
I just found that if you have "PRESCAN" set to on, you will not be able to
catch these BankFraud/Phishing e-mails. However, if you set "PRESCAN" to
"
some protections for zip files with malformed headers that might detect
this exploit.
Matt
Tito Macapinlac wrote:
Hi,
Here is a bulletin re: new vulnerability regarding zip files. Maybe another good
reason to ban zip files if your AV is vulnerable.
http://www.idefense.com/application/poi
Chris,
It's always helpful to share the actual lines of your log when asking a
question such as this. That will clear up any possible misperceptions
and allow one to focus on what happened.
Matt
Chris Patterson wrote:
I have had two reports in the last 2 days about a virus coming through
e updating your
definitions on an hourly basis and also think about adding a second
scanner if things like this are going to cause problems for your
clients and business.
Matt
Chris Patterson wrote:
Log Files:
10/19/2004 12:58:45 Q47c21ade0114a44b MIME file: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[base64; Le
that even if I threw
Ipswitch another $4,000, nothing would really change with them except
for the damn price, and I really, really hate being taken advantage of.
Maybe you are confident about your plans for the future, but not knowing
them, how could I be.
Thanks,
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
You
make sure that these file types are in your BANEXT
list. This will allow through all other types of files within the
encrypted zips, including the CSV file that your client wants to
receive.
Matt
Peter Lowish wrote:
Declude 1.81 virus
standard
A client reguarly receives a
Sandy,
So what do you do when the next IMail exploit pops up such as that LDAP
exploit and you have no way to fix the bug? Can a serious business
even take the risk of this happening?
No.
I can't see myself on IMail for any more than a year from now.
Matt
Sanford Whiteman
his upgrade path is a screw if I've ever seen
one, and they will never get another dime from me unless the management
is forced out that made these choices. Consider that to be a personal
observation and preference, so the sky is definitely blue.
Matt
Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Just a couple of thoughts...Maybe there is a limitation with strings
that involve a space? Alternatively, maybe there was no name reported
by the scanner, and this was just simply the value that Declude logged.
Matt
Markus Gufler wrote:
Now the F-prot update is arrived also here
ither has an MX or an A record. Adding one of these
will keep that test from failing.
Matt
Declude wrote:
Hi John,
this is the actual forwarding
of one eMail of my customer.
I guess I have to make a reverse DNS entry, don't you think ?
Uwe
Received: from lasthope [217.235.73.14] by irg
1 - 100 of 332 matches
Mail list logo
