On a daily basis:
Run move2num
Run dbupdate
In ASSP setup (web interface) put a check in these options:
Add Spam Probability Header
Add Bayes Confidence Header
Add Spam Header*
Add Spam Reason Header
* Adds a header(X-Assp-Spam: YES) this allows your users to filter what ASSP
thinks is spam.
I have this error randomly on ASSP:
Your server has unexpectedly terminated the connection. Possible causes for
this include server problems, network problems, or a long period of
inactivity. Account: 'x', Server: 'smtp.xxx', Protocol: SMTP,
Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Error Number:
Did you verify that all your outbound email is going through ASSP? Kinda
obvious I know but we had a problem where ours wasn't for a couple of
months and boy did it get ugly as the whitelist entries started to
expire. Once I figured that out and fixed it things improved radically
within a day or
I wonder if it has anything to do with the SSL cert? Haven't gotten any
bites on the list for this problem yet. I'm going to recreate the cert and
see if that does the trick. In the mean time, if anyone wants to chime in
with ideas - please do!
Thanks,
Sam
SJ.Stanaitis - Network Administrator
Mike,
I spent about two weeks training the Bayesian filter before I was happy
with it. Those two weeks were very time consuming (and dull) spent
moving messages between the spam and notspam folders (frequenting
rebuilding the spamdb) but in the end the filter works well. If you
know more than
I spent about two weeks training the Bayesian filter before I was happy
with it. Those two weeks were very time consuming (and dull) spent
moving messages between the spam and notspam folders (frequenting
rebuilding the spamdb) but in the end the filter works well. If you
know more than I,
Hi again,
I have had two reports of this particular
error in webmail, which shows up in the left-hand column:An error was encountered while processing your request. (Return to
previous page) If you encounter this error again, please provide the
following information to your network
I have this error randomly on ASSP:
ASSP has a mailing list for support that you can browse and join at
http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=69172
The reason I point this out is I haven't seen you posting this question
there.
I would suggest posting your configuration questions there.
Title: Asp error
2006 is filled with permission problems so this wouldn't
surprise me. Since this is a 2003 server .net 1.1 came on it but it is
patched.
I was thinking of removing the Iadmin app pool and
recreating it but am not sure. I'm leaning more towards the if it isn't broken
don't
Hi Jason
We have been using a Barracuda in front of our IMail server for the last
2 years and have been very happy with the unit. The unit is easy to
administer and setup. We had to make some changes to our SMTP ports but
that is the way we are set and I don't think that would be typical
Can connect to both without a problem
Steven Couture
WebNet Services, Inc.
(914) 923-4811 Ext. 100
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sharyn Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:49 AM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject:
Just out of curiosity, what is the benefit of running ASSP, IMGATE, Barracuda,
and Alligate all in front of your mail system? I have used most of these
products individually in front a several different types of mail servers, and
it would seem to me there would be little if any benefit from
Oops, never mind. I misread the previous message. You were offering these as
examples and advising to choose ONE, not use them all. ;-) That makes sense.
*self-administered dope slap in progress*
~M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Not literally. I meant the SMTP Proxies in general, whatever your choice
was. One is enough. :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Callahan
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:54 AM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: RE: [IMail
S'Okay. :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Callahan
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Update for SMTP vulnerability in 8.22
Oops, never mind. I misread the
Title: Asp error
I hate
this because a smoking engine is usually an indicator of bigger
problems.
"Left to themselves, things go from bad to
worse."
- Somebody's corollary to
Murphy's Law, "The perversity of a system tends to a
maximum."
:-)
-d
- Original Message -
From:
Sam,
I wonder if it has anything to do with the SSL cert? Haven't
gotten any
bites on the list for this problem yet. I'm going to
recreate the cert and
see if that does the trick. In the mean time, if anyone
wants to chime in
with ideas - please do!
I do have SSL running. For me,
Sorry ther is an error as the correct SMTP Destination is secondary IP:225
I have already posted the question to ASSP mailing list but anyone has
helped me.
Thank you if you can help me on this issue.
- Original Message -
From: Doug Traylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Just out of curiosity, what is the benefit of running ASSP, IMGATE,
Barracuda, and Alligate all in front of your mail system? I have
used most of these products individually in front a several
different types of mail servers, and it would seem to me there would
be little if any benefit
I just want to re-clarify something that I mentioned before in relation
to the vulnerability and gateways.
The only way that one can prevent the exploit on an exploitable copy it
to turn off the SMTP service or prevent all external traffic. This is
not an option for most running IMail.
Title: 2006.1 login changes?
Were there any changes to the login pages from 2006.04a to 2006.1? One of our clients uses an extranet that logs users into imail from a link.
Thanks,
Bill Foresman
Matrosity Hosting
www.matrosity.com
850.656.2644
Dave,
By conincidence I have had two similar errors reported to me this afternoon
like this. The error is copied below.
I'll log it with Ipswitch and see what they have to say. But you are not alone!
An error was encountered while processing your request. (Return to previous
page)
If you
All a script kiddie needs to do is point their exploit script at your
unprotected server's IP and it's toast. A gateway can't prevent that from
happening.
Not true in our case. A gateway does protect your server if it's the only
way to get to said server.
Our gateway AV works after the ASSP
Title: 2006.1 login changes?
Yes, you have to add a new field - if you are using
the sso.html field as follows -
loginhtml =
loginhtml.replace('name="hdnPwdChanged"', 'name="hdnPwdChanged"
value="yes"');
- Original Message -
From:
Matrosity
Hosting
To:
I think that I was pretty clear about this in the sentence before the
one that you quoted. Most people running IMail do not have the option
of blocking access to SMTP (service providers for instance), and as long
as one can get to the SMTP service and the SMTP service is not patched,
it can
I think that I was pretty clear about this in the sentence before
the one that you quoted.
with an front-end MX like IMGate taking raw Internet inbound, you can
really shut down via firewall access to the SMTP service, almost
completely hardending the SMTP service against attacks.
1. the
Thanks, Will. Good to know.
-d
- Original Message -
From: Will David [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum] Re: [IMail Forum] Another 2006.1 web mail error
Dave,
By conincidence I have had two similar
Len, et. al,
IMail 8.x does not support Auth-only on any port, so it is not possible
to just simply work around the vulnerability in this way.
I agree that forcing SMTP Auth on the server itself would be best, while
leaving the MX related stuff to the gateway. Redirecting 25 to 587 on a
Title: 2006.1 login changes?
Hi Mike,
When I use the password stored in Firefox (it's the correct password)
login fails.I have to manually type the password, and it's
annoying. I'm guessing the code you posted has something to do with
that.
However, when I search the web directory for
Title: 2006.1 login changes?
Jim,
The sso.html only applies if you have
implemented single signon or have a client who wants to log in from an external
or heavily branded page - following the sample technique at http://support.ipswitch.com/kb/IM-20051206-DM06.htm
You're right, the new
Title: 2006.1 login changes?
Thanks Mike.
Has anyone implemented this so that the username password aren't
displayed in the address bar? At the very least using POST instead of GET
when calling sso.html?
Thanks,
Jim Frasch
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Title: 2006.1 login changes?
I
would be interested in that too.
I
worked something up in PHP where the login form used POST and then there was a
header redirect to sso.html, but the logon information still appeared in the
address bar for a split-second while sso.html did its
magic.
Yes I
have Premium AntiSpam and I give it a medium at best
This
past week I have had too many Virus get past this engine and then some are
stopped on the desktop by a desktop version of Symantec. You would think
that a server edition would work better than a desk top version.
I am
Hi Deb-
I am using Symantec AntiVirus Corporate
Edition with 2006.1 (NOT using the Premium AntiSpam), and I did use it with
8.15. I made the transition by doing a clean installation of W2K and IM2006, not
by upgrading in situ. I have SAV set to scan on create in the spool, and not in
the
Hi,
I have been called in to do an emergency
upgrade on an iMail 2006 server that I have seen only once before. It seems to
be running 9.01 (according to the services menu in the administrator console)
which I am assuming is iMail 2006.01. Now I have downloaded the upgrades IMail
I would say you should apply 2006.1 since that is the only
version of 2006 that is safe from the latest smtp problem.
Bill Foresman
Matrosity Hosting
www.matrosity.com
850.656.2644
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goran
JovanovicSent: Wednesday, November
There's probably an easier way (like what you tried), but right click
on the smtp32.exe file, go to properties, choose the version tab, and
then choose "Product Version" from the values there. It should be "9,
1, 0, dev_test" if it is 2006.1.
Note that Ipswitch has a funny naming convention
Hi Matt,
The version of SMTPD is 9, 0, 1, 15 and it is dated Dec 19, 2005 which is
consistent with 2006.01
I am on site now and have found a partial directory of
C:\Program Files\Ipswitch\IMail
which seems some leftover files from ICS. There is only one EXE file and it is
called
Goran, if you can look through the services and see if anything from
Ipswitch or Imail is there.
If that does not help, restart in safe mode and rename the directory and
restart and check the event logs for what did not start.
Also, review the msconfig file.
I'll be around after 10 PM
Let me share with you what happened. The short answer is
that I have upgraded to 2006.1 and everything seems to be working.
There were two items giving me grief.
1 There seemed to be a previous installation of ICS
2 The upgrade files were going to downgrade my
installation
This
Wow, what a mess.
I am SO glad I did my install ona new
box.
-d
- Original Message -
From:
Goran Jovanovic
To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:06
AM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Upgrading
version problem
Let me share
Yes, I have seen problems with an older
version of PaperPort which installed with a %1 in several
registry keys which later led to problems uninstalling other programs that were
installed before PaperPort but still used InstallationShield for the
installation build.
John T
eServices
42 matches
Mail list logo
