Changing the NIC is justa a standard response from IPSwitch. I would not put
much weight on it if you are running a 3com or intel NIC witht eh latest
drivers.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of FIRST Internet
Mail
If you are getting many files stuck in the queue check to see if you have
the minitor service monitoring the www service. If you do when the queue
backs up and it is not sending messages run a net stat. There is a good
chance you will see all of your client connection ports in a wait_close
state.
The receptionist is the recipient. The postoffice has done it's job.
But in a company setting, often there is a receptionist that 'screens' the
postal mail, tossing the obvious junk mail and in some 'deployments' even
opening the mail prior to it reaching its intended recipient.
Postini is an
Reply to: FIRST Internet Mail Administrators
Re: [IMail Forum] 8.02 Patch on Saturday 12:31:04 AM
No they did not. I have 3COM.
--
Roger Heath
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rleeheath.com
- Copy of Original Message(s): -
F Roger,
F Did Ipswitch state that it was a specific brand/model
Reply to: FIRST Internet Mail Administrators
Re: [IMail Forum] 8.02 Patch on Saturday 12:31:04 AM
One additional note. We did see many 10054 TCP errors
are are still seeing some of these. It was the TCP errors
which Ipswitch said is notorious of a bad NIC.
--
Roger Heath
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply to: Kevin Bilbee
Re: [IMail Forum] 8.02 Patch on Saturday 1:00:51 AM
Is the solution not to monitor WWW?
--
Roger Heath
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rleeheath.com
- Copy of Original Message(s): -
K If you are getting many files stuck in the queue check to see if you have
K the
Actually, he is accepting 16% of mail.
more or less
another 34% is rejected that is not
spam (using these figures)
Why use the Postini's 50% at all? 50% applies only to Postini, it's
totally useless for any other anti-spam macchine.
Message Labs UK says spam surpassed 50% in May, one month
It's simply not a problem, in practice.
So it's not a problem if free Internet services go away
It's not MY problem.
and if you have to pay higher prices from small businesses?
Who are these small businesses I'm paying anything to?
See http://www.declude.com/plea.htm.
My summary:
Declude uses
There are a couple of items I think should be distinguished that may
affect everyone's point of view.
First, I believe there is a big distinction between a Service Provider's needs versus a
Corporate type organization's needs. The service provider is not the
final consumer of the email service
So Len, I understand It is quite hot all over.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge
David, you could certainly maintain the benefits of have a first and second
level spam-filtering system, but still make it a bit more reliable and
accurate buy implementing something like SpamAssassin on your Postfix
gateways, since like Declude JunkMail, it also operates on a fully weighted
David Sullivan wrote:
There are a couple of items I think should be distinguished that may
affect everyone's point of view.
snip some very good comments
So...I think that's what this whole discussion comes down to...cost
and benefit. Multiple test rejection is great, but as volumes grow you
just
And if youwhitelist these two addresses, you are letting in tons of spam
anyway.
In practice, there really isn't a proble that I've heard about from IMGate
admins nor seen myself, or anywhere else for that matter, in having these
two recipients unfiltered. Spammers don't seem to think
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chris Scott
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Anyone have any experiences with Postini ?
David Sullivan wrote:
There are a couple of items I
Yep, I do agree and block without question systems that connect to my
gateways and announce my own hostname or ip address in their helo string.
Or messages that contain non-printable or lot's of 8-bit content in the
headers, or illegal hostnames, etc. But for the most part, we try not to be
too
From: Len Conrad
So, he is rejecting over 2 legit messages for
every one accepted.
Do really think that is really happening?
Not really. But, why do you think you are getting 84% (or higher) spam
while the internet as a whole only sees 50-60%?
And if youwhitelist these two addresses,
203.232.18.211 this morning and now 67.85.27.143 has been hitting me all
afternoon. Weird no?
-Josh
20030816 051925 127.0.0.1 SMTPD (03020036) [203.232.18.211] HELO local
20030816 051927 127.0.0.1 SMTPD (03030036) [64.81.214.120] connect
203.232.18.211 port 4628
20030816 051927
FYI, we've had quite a few reports of spammers sending to postmaster@
accounts, apparently in an attempt to bypass filtering.
We're starting to see them sent to root@ also (as cc's).
For example, if you run a business and
advertise a sales@ address, how can you know that a reject was spam or
People decide to use IMGate because they've heard, in this list and elsewhere, that
IMGate gives good results. So they try it (even after buying and using Declude), and
they find that Imgate works for them, too.
They think they're getting good results because they're not seeing the FP's.
In a
See http://www.declude.com/plea.htm.
My summary:
Declude uses multiple criteria to reject. Declude, naturally, thinks this
is the best.
You seem to be confused. Declude *can* use a single spam test to block
spam. Or it can use multiple tests. So it only benefits us to push using
multiple
Not really. But, why do you think you are getting 84% (or higher) spam
while the internet as a whole only sees 50-60%?
Some IMGate sites, with essentially the same rules, get in the 50's. But the
majority are usually well over 60, and some are 80+% all day every day.
As I said, I find the
From: Travis Rabe
I compleely agree. In a business setting, single failure filtering is
very
acceptable and I have had no problems using it with so very few false
positives I don't even hardly keep track anymore.
Actually, in a business setting, missing one or two emails a week can be a
Actually, your Postal mail theory isn't valid. Try getting a mailing
machine. Your system is assigned a zip code (the one you mail from). That
is printed on your envelopes with the postage. Now try going to another
state and dropping that mail in a mail box. I can guarantee you that the
post
Reminds me of a game I had many years ago (little man in the computer, like
an interactive fishbowl). He went grey during a computer crash and never did
recover (and sayed grumpy for months).
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:53 PM
Windows
As I said, I find the variation from ISP to ISP dramatic and inexplicable.
It's happened to several times, when I pick up a new blacklist or rule
that does extremely well on one site, and then take it another site,
excited to see excellent increment of rejects, and blah, nada.
I, too, have
Actually, in a business setting, missing one or two emails a week can be a
huge deal. A single missed email can mean lost business or incurred
liability.
This is quite true. I know of a case where someone ordered a $3,000+
product online, and was going to mail a check after receiving a
From: david
In a situation where single point failure tests are being
administered at the corporate level (not at the ISP) then IMGate
and similar solutions may appear to work well because the admin
(presumably) is looking after the concerns of his *customers*
i.e. internal users. They
From: R. Scott Perry
Len: small businesses that go out of business because they can't solve
their email delivery problems deserve to got out of business
False problem. People don't design filters to have false positives.
Yes, they do. You did with your ACL test. You designed the
On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, 16:29:55, Richard Farris wrote:
I deleted a large email in a customers email folder and it deleted all of
the email..is there any way to at least tell who sent what to this
customer...I know the email is gone I just wanted to know if something would
be in the log
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, 12:25:08, Deb Chard wrote:
Does anyone know if it is possible to have an attachment sent with an
info manager auto reply?
Ummm... the obvious question is why?
It's easy enough to include a URL in the reply so whoever really is
interested can just click.
On Saturday, August 16, 2003, 16:30:24, Karen D. Oland wrote:
...
At the same time, many who send out an RFP to multiple vendors generally
won't even worry about the ones that come back rejected, figuring the
company has gone away.
Why would they think the company has gone away? There's
won't even worry about the ones that come back rejected, figuring the
company has gone away.
Why would they think the company has gone away? There's a difference
between a nonexistent server and a rejection due to You're on spammer
list xxx.
All depends on what type of
Karen D. Oland wrote:
From: david
In a situation where single point failure tests are being
administered at the corporate level (not at the ISP) then IMGate
and similar solutions may appear to work well because the admin
(presumably) is looking after the concerns of his *customers*
i.e.
At the same time, many who send out an RFP to multiple vendors generally
won't even worry about the ones that come back rejected, figuring the
company has gone away.
Why would they think the company has gone away? There's a difference
between a nonexistent server and a rejection due to
Not to single you out, but I've seen this comment a few times from
different people in this thread and I keep wondering why the assumption is
that if you are rejecting email for your customers (whether you are a
service provider or a company) you can't tell them some information about
the
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I ran a test, and unless someone cal tell me exactly where the
!--IMAIL.##Date##--
Gets it's time from. You are not going to be able to use Javascript
Actually, you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. :)
Hello [Scott];
See what I mean by what I wrote,
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Not to single you out, but I've seen this comment a few times from
different people in this thread and I keep wondering why the
assumption is that if you are rejecting email for your customers
(whether you are a service provider or a company) you can't tell them
some
Assuming that you reject the E-mail before it is delivered, all
you know is
that an address [EMAIL PROTECTED] tried sending an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
And if your firewall/entry gate is rejecting all email from a DSL network
(by IP range) and that is where the email originated, would you
From: Chris Scott
Along the same lines as you note in the examples above, I also
can't tell if
the person calling me with no caller ID is a phone solicitor or someone
inquiring about my goods and services. However, I may not pick
up the phone
if I'm on the other line since almost all of
Karen D. Oland wrote:
Assuming that you reject the E-mail before it is delivered, all
you know is
that an address [EMAIL PROTECTED] tried sending an E-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
And if your firewall/entry gate is rejecting all email from a DSL network
(by IP range) and that is where the email
Or, how do you know it isn't a Fortune 500 company sending you a RFP for
a major hosting contract versus someone trying to sell you a mortgage?
I can't. I don't. This is why I said some information. Obviously a
script is not clairvoyant and can only glean the information it has at
that
I'm not saying don't filter. I'm saying Filter based on the results of
several tests, rather than just one. By doing so, you are guarantee
fewer
false positives. And, if you want, you can find out exactly how many
false
positives there are.
Scott,
Isn't the only way to determine if
42 matches
Mail list logo
