For the few dollars extra for a hardware mirror, we opt to go that route.
We've had drives die and you just swap the drive and re-boot, using the
controller sofware to re-build the new drive.
I also agree with the boot disk. W2K automates it in the backup utility, so
there is no excuse not to
We use MSCS with Advanced Server 2000. We use a SCSI shared storage
bus. It has worked quite well for us.
Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss.
Don
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Donnelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:46 PM
Here's the situation... I'm using Imail 7.07
as a Backup Mail Spooler only (no mail account,domain list is in HOSTS
file) to my primary mail server. The relay settings are for Addresses only
and the only address allowed for realy is my primary mail server (sounds good
right?).
Here's what
Title: OT Verisign hijack *.net - crosspost
Forward from another list -
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alan Brown
Subject: BLOCK: verisign hijack *.net !
more precisely, they've hijacked every single non-assigned .net
possibility. Apparently .com is to follow soon.
Any
Joe,
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 you wrote:
JW They send a message to the BACKUP server with a known BAD primary
JW mail address for a domain in the HOSTS file and a SPAM CC address
JW that they want to send to. The backup server accepts the mail
JW because it is addressed to a domain in the HOSTS
Did
you make sure that imail has your correct dns settings in the admin interface
for smtp?
-Original Message-From: Jeff Czyzewski
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 6:15
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [IMail
Forum] Unable to send mail error
Yes. The DNS settings are identical to the other Imail server.Its odd that
I can send email through the new server when I use an email client, but not
when I use the Killerwebmail templates.
Original Message:
-
From: Mark Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:52:41
Here's what the spammers are doing. They send a message to the BACKUP
server with a known BAD primary mail address for a domain in the HOSTS
file and a SPAM CC address that they want to send to.
the cc: header contents are not used for delivery
the spam cc domain is in the hosts file?
The
Len, and others
I can't post the logs easily since our security policy prevents using email
clients on servers, but Len you are right I suppose. Forgive my ignorance
since I'm not an Imail expert.
The message shows two addresses. One domain is in the HOSTS file and one is
not (a bunch of
more precisely, they've hijacked every single non-assigned .net
possibility. Apparently .com is to follow soon.
.com did follow (both .net and .com occurred at the same time).
But it isn't off-topic: It breaks the MAILFROM or equivalent spam test
(that checks the domain of the return address
Not a lot of help or I would have posted it in the beginning...
Here's the message --
- Original Message -
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:04 AM
Subject: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered
A message (from
I can't post the logs easily since our security policy prevents using email
clients on servers, but Len you are right I suppose.
How about TS or pcA to the server, edit the log file, and paste into a
local email client?
Forgive my ignorance
since I'm not an Imail expert.
This isn't IMail,
Not a lot of help
... wrong!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Persistent Transient Failure: Delivery time expired
Delivery last attempted at 13 Sep 2003 19:34:40 +
shows that the sending MTA was getting
1) either nothing but 4xx from your MX until the msg's q lifetime expired,
or
2) could not establish
Imail will not put any other address in the Q file it creates during the
receiving of the message other than what the sending mail server says it is
for. Since you backup MX is only configured for one domain, Imail will only
receive for that domain.
Now, what you might want to check is if the
Title: 550 user domain does not exist
One of my users is having a problem sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is the log:
09:16 11:13 SMTPD(0E0D00B2) [192.168.x.x] MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09:16 11:13 SMTPD(0E0D00B2) [192.168.x.x] RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09:16 11:13
If we can just figure out how to make this happen to the hundred of spam
emails each day and not the legitimate emails from ATT and Verizon, there's
money to be made here.
:)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Tuesday,
Title: RE: [IMail Forum] OT Verisign hijack *.net - crosspost
Do you know if there is anything that users of imail 8.02 can do since the anti spam option do not allow you to query a particular zone?
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday,
Title: 550 user domain does not exist
My
question is why is your mail server reporting internal ip's? This may have
something to do with it.
-Original Message-From: Sharyn Schmidt
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003
11:43 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
Title: 550 user domain does not exist
If
Im reading the log dump correctly, it implies that there are no mail
servers registered for that particular domain. Or that domain doesnt
exist. Typo?
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
One of my users is having a problem sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can thank good old Veriscam for that:
09:16 11:13 SMTP-(09CC) Trying nblcsanb.com (0)
09:16 11:13 SMTP-(09CC) Connect nblcsanb.com [64.94.110.11:25] (1)
64.94.110.11 is Verisign's way of saying That domain doesn't
Do you know if there is anything that users of imail 8.02 can do since the
anti spam option do not allow you to query a particular zone?
I believe the way that IMail v8's anti-spam handles this is that you first
create the test (using something like VERISCAM as the test name, querying
the zone
Title: Sheesh..another bounce..NOW WHAT?
Im getting bounces when trying to send to this address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is the bounce message:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we
== me (IMgate with :
subscriber network filter (a massacre!)
helo filters, sender.domain filters (bloodbath)
sender address verfication, (fine-grained mop up)
== you, on your own. :))
can just figure out how to make this happen to the hundred of spam
emails each day and not the legitimate
Im getting bounces when trying to send to this address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is the bounce message:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
This is a bit different -- this one isn't coming from IMail.
http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/[EMAIL PROTECTED] shows
that they
Title: Message
Well
according to Network Solutions that domain (nblcsanb.com)is available to be
registered.
Rick Hogue
www.intent.net Web Hosting
1-800-866-2983
www.prosperity.com Featured web
site
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we can just figure out how to make this happen to the hundred of spam
emails each day and not the legitimate emails from ATT and Verizon, there's
money to be made here.
first, total connects from ATTBI TLD is right up there in qty with the
spammer TLD's
Host/Domain Summary: SMTPD Connections
If you still need someone let me know. We can work something out.
-Seth
- Original Message -
From: Paul Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Looking for someone to host backup mail
Hello,
We are
Many thanks to everyone in this forum who helped fix this problem
particularly Jim.
I do hope Ipswitch read this and put the fix in the knowledge base for
others to follow.
Best Regards
Mike Forbes
- Original Message -
From: Mike Forbes (RAF Henlow) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
first, total connects from ATTBI TLD is right up there in qty with the
spammer TLD's
And so is Yahoo.com. They are legitimate. The quantity of E-mail from a
specific domain compared to a domain that spams is completely irrelevant here.
And I believe ATTBI stands for ATT Business Internet.
Well as long as we are all correcting each other today lol... yes it is
scott :)
http://www.attbi.com/comcast.html
And I believe ATTBI stands for ATT Business Internet. That ain't
residential.
Bryan
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive:
Hi All,
I have a client who is receiving bounced messages from a hotmail account,
and they swear it is a good account.
Below is the bounce message, any help/insight as to what might be causing
the bounce would be appreciated.
THANKS
Peter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hopefully this is the correct info from the log files.
I am very new to IMail and got thrown into managing this server, so please
bear with me.
20030911 080229 127.0.0.1 SMTP (1072) MAIL
FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
20030911 080229 127.0.0.1 POP3D (0704) logoff for gwsjmarilynf
R:1,
I have a client who is receiving bounced messages from a hotmail account,
and they swear it is a good account.
Below is the bounce message, any help/insight as to what might be causing
the bounce would be appreciated.
The IMail Unknown user (and similar) bounce message don't include the
reason
The b doesn't matter, attbi is huge abuser, they remain blocked.
sigh Starting in May, when you started this whole business of blocking
with intentional collateral damage, you said it was because IPs that
appeared to be residential shouldn't be sending E-mail. Now it seems that
you've
And so is Yahoo.com. They are legitimate.
Why bring up yahoo, except to spew your FUD? We aren't blocking yahoo
networks. Yahoo was in the list of MTA connections, not in the list of
rejects.
The quantity of E-mail from a specific domain compared to a domain that
spams is completely
Peter, 2 things,
1: As Scott said, bouncefinder will tell you what you need, GREAT TOOL!
2: X-RBL-Warning: OSRELAY: Please stop using relays.osirusoft.com
Take the osirusoft tests out of your Declude global.cfg.
Just in case no one else noticed. =)
Paul
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses
PERFECT
THANK YOU
Peter
-Original Message-
From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Unknown User Error-PLEASE HELP
I am very new to IMail and got thrown into managing this server, so
I keep getting files like this in my sys log, any ideas?
Classic old bug, cosmetic only, fixed in current release.
-Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What do the mail logs show?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Lent
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:51 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [IMail Forum] Unknown User Error-PLEASE HELP
Hi All,
I have a client who is receiving bounced
Like Scott said, you found the right info.
I like that tool on dnsreports.com. I will have to remember that it's there.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
And so is Yahoo.com. They are legitimate.
Why bring up yahoo, except to spew your FUD? We aren't blocking yahoo
networks. Yahoo was in the list of MTA connections, not in the list of
rejects.
You were implying that the more connections you get from a domain, the more
likely it is to be spam.
I am very new to IMail and got thrown into managing this server, so please
bear with me.
You did good. :)
20030911 080229 127.0.0.1 SMTP (1072) RCPT
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
20030911 080230 127.0.0.1 SMTP (1072) 550 Requested action not
taken: mailbox unavailable
The problem is that
R. Scott Perry wrote:
first, total connects from ATTBI TLD is right up there in qty with the
spammer TLD's
And so is Yahoo.com. They are legitimate. The quantity of E-mail from
a specific domain compared to a domain that spams is completely
irrelevant here.
And I believe ATTBI stands for
Maybe this would clear it up:
Test: Is the connecting MTA one I want to block?
Possible result: yes or no (there is no maybe in this test)
False positive: I incorrectly characterize an MTA that I don't want to
block as a yes.
It depends on what you are measuring. If you are measuring what
ATTBI is NOT worldnet.att.net dialup
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Certain ISP's failure/IMail
If we can just figure out how to make
and ATTBI was ATT Broadband which was used to replace @home and then sold to
Comcast
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Certain ISP's
ATTBI is NOT worldnet.att.net dialup
did somebody say it was?
Len
_
http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training: San Jose; Wash DC; Dallas; Atlanta
IMGate.MEIway.com: anti-spam gateway, effective on 1000's of sites, free
To Unsubscribe:
Note there is nothing about spam in there. Nothing about content.
Nothing about consent. This type of test is different than a test
that tries to determine if a message is spam and thus has a
different definition of false positive.
Which is perfectly fine, if this were not a
actually, you inferred it by posting it in the thread that had talked of
worldnet.att.net and no mention of ATTBI
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE:
More fuel to the fire ;)
Most of the spam that gets past my server w/IMail 8.02 spam filters look
like this.
Chris
Received: from smtp-2.his.com [216.194.225.88] by peake.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.02) id AA561000154; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:53:58 -0400
Received: from
More fuel to the fire ;)
Most of the spam that gets past my server w/IMail 8.02 spam filters look
like this.
Received: from smtp-2.his.com [216.194.225.88] by peake.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.02) id AA561000154; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:53:58 -0400
Received: from h000347ec7062.ne.client2.attbi.com
Actually, that's easy to catch (no matter what anti-spam software
you are using).
Not if you're only testing hop zero, though.
-Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail:
Title: Message
Please send it to me.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of IT Department
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 6:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IMAIL
Log Analyzer
My program does
Received: from h000347ec7062.ne.client2.attbi.com
... which we block (after tons of spew from that PTR domain) at the PTR
hostname level with
/(.*client2.attbi.com)/
/(.*client.attbi.com)/
... because of crap like:
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
as the MAIL FROM:.
The other item in
For details of this crap, I reference my post a couple days ago of the
long list of rejects from Scott's network provider, charter, whose
subscriber nets are spam factories.
Len, could you please lay off the personal attacks?
The point is that the spew from subscriber networks is so
Title: Message
Can I also get it?
d
u
s
t
i n
- Original Message -
From:
support
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:19
PM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IMAIL Log
Analyzer
Please send it to me.
Thanks.
-Original
For details of this crap, I reference my post a couple days ago of the
long list of rejects from Scott's network provider, charter, whose
subscriber nets are spam factories.
Len, could you please lay off the personal attacks?
Would you please thicken your skin? There was ono personal attack
legitimate emails from ATT and Verizon. The solution given to this
query was subscriber network filter--blatantly counter to the
requirements!
We don't block ATT or Verizon's or any or the network operators' MTAs, only
their subscriber networks, and I stated that it solved the
I claim no false positives, without absurdity, because what you and Scott
refuse to take on board is that declaring a spam spewing network
illegitimate as an MX policy TERMINATES ALL TESTING for SPAM. With no
testing, there can be no false positives in any sense of that phrase,
period,
It absolutely amazes me that folks can get away with blocking legitmate mail.
Who's blocking legitimate mail?
I say block subscriber networks, and Scott's FUD goes this _can_ have
very, very high FPs. Until he can prove that blocking subscriber networks
really does have the nebulous very,
60 matches
Mail list logo
