Couple of ways. One is to give a small weight to REVDNS that ends in other countries such as .pl.
Another is to create a filter test such as the following: MAILFROM END NOTENDSWITH .edu REVDNS 15 ENDSWITH .pl John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of IS - > Systems Eng. (Karl Drugge) > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 11:32 AM > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Way to filter bogus FRMOM domains ? > > I've been trying to filter some SPAM that is using a false FROM domain. > Stuff is coming from overseas ( spammachine.spamsite.spammer.pl > [99.99.99.99] ), but is using a false from domain, such as ( > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). > > This stuff would fail, except DECLUDE shows it as coming from a .edu, > and clears it ( assigns the appropriate negative value, I should say ). > Now, for reasons I won't go into here, I HAVE to allow all mail from > .edu domains, as well as .gov, and .us... I can't bounce it, and I have > no other way to pre-allow email from some junior college in upper > southern north Dakota... > > Any help on this ? > > Karl Drugge > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Colbeck, Andrew > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:33 PM > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files -> > Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug! > > And it made its appearance over at the SANS Internet Storm Center > handler's log: > > http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1711 > > In short, Microsoft has admitted that there is a problem and updated > their advisory and also provided a hotfix. > > Andrew. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem > > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:16 AM > > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in > > files -> Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug! > > > > Andy, > > > > Not sure if you saw it but this issue was brought up on > > Slashdot yesterday, so it got some exposure. > > > > Heimir > > > > > > Andy Schmidt wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support > > > yesterday afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854) > > > > > > "We are aware the issue you are experiencing. A > > corresponding bugcheck > > > request is currently open, and the develop team is working > > on this issue. > > > However, the hotfix for this issue is not ready. > > > > > > 0xDF is the data pattern that NTFS returns when it has problem to > > > decompress the file (eg. the compression fragments are > > corrupted and > > > can't be decompressed). Based on my research, the actual > > raw data on > > > the disk is not changed, it shows as 0xDF because the system cannot > > > decompress the file and display the data correctly. So the > > corrupt is not permanent. > > > > > > Further more, the issue only occurs on files which containing > > > Hexadecimal codes." > > > > > > Apparently, Microsoft decided not to warn people about this > > problem - > > > no comment has been added to KF920958 warning people which system > > > configurations will cause data loss (who cares if it's not > > permanent > > > if you can't use your data for a few months). > > > > > > Best Regards > > > Andy Schmidt > > > > > > Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > > Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > Heimir Eidskrem > > > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 03:21 PM > > > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files -> > > > KB920958 may be bad! > > > > > > Answers below. > > > > > > Andy Schmidt wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Heimir: > > >> > > >> I've been running a number of tests, am in contact with a third > > >> Microsoft customer and some pattern seems to emerge. I also have a > > >> "lead" to a questionable Hotfix, but I'm trying to qualify > > that first. > > >> > > >> Can we first compare your systems to see what's the same > > (and may be > > >> relevant) and what's different: > > >> > > >> A) Disks are defined as "dynamic" > > >> > > >> > > > Dynamic > > > > > >> B) Disks are software mirrored using Win2k Disk Administration > > >> > > >> > > > no > > > > > >> C) The folders with the "problem" files have the "compression" > > >> attribute set! > > >> > > >> > > > yes. > > > > > >> D) Did the problem occur at some point after KB920958 was > > installed? > > >> > > >> > > > yes, I think so. > > > > > >> E) Do the corrupted files have a content of all 0xDF (it looks a > > >> little like an uppercase "B", the German special "s", or like the > > >> Beta > > >> character) > > >> > > >> > > > Yes > > > > > >> F) Does it appear as if only NEW files are effected? > > >> > > >> > > > no, old files as well. BUT I think defrag ran this weekend and that > > > would have moved some files - if that matters. > > > > > >> G) Does it appear as if only files are effected that are > > close to a > > >> multiple of 4K? > > >> > > >> > > > Yes. > > > > > >> I broke the mirrors on my effected two servers and ran > > ChkDsk /F. On > > >> one server, ONE disk ChkDsk reported errors (including the > > files that > > >> I knew were corrupted) - virtually all of them were image > > file types. > > >> I reran the ChkDsk and it did NOT find errors. I then tried the > > >> second disk of the mirror and it found no errors at all. I then > > >> restablished the mirrors and my client continues to have > > problems with new files. > > >> > > >> On the second server, I broke the mirror, again, the ChcDsk /F > > >> repaired a long list of errors. I did NOT reestablish the > > mirror and > > >> did not put that disk back in service. > > >> > > >> > > >> Please contribute to the thread in the Microsoft newsgroup: > > >> > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/newsgroups/dgbrowser/en-us > > >> / > > >> defaul > > >> > > t.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win2000.file_system&mid=d826afe9-2ab1-4b2f > > >> - > > >> ae11-c > > >> c27702f574a > > >> > > >> Best Regards > > >> Andy Schmidt > > >> > > >> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > >> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of > > >> Heimir Eidskrem > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:29 PM > > >> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > >> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files > > >> > > >> Follow up: > > >> During the day I did run chkdks with no switch to check the hard > > >> drive, it reported errors and could not continue. Last night I did > > >> run chkdsk /f on the partition and it did not find any > > errors this time. > > >> > > >> i did process a few thumbnails and they worked fine at > > 12:30am today. > > >> At 8:00am they still worked but now 11:27 they dont. This was old > > >> photos that I did reprocess again. A couple of new photos that was > > >> uploaded yesterday and processed yesterday is still working fine. > > >> > > >> I can't make much sense out of this. Not sure what to next. > > >> I dont think its hardware and I am certain its not our software. > > >> So that leaves OS. > > >> > > >> > > >> Heimir Eidskrem wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> we are having the exact problem on one of our servers. > > >>> We create small thumbnail pictures about 4k in size. > > >>> They work fine at first but later they are corrupted. > > >>> > > >>> Windows 2000 server. > > >>> > > >>> I have no clue what it could be at this time. > > >>> It started around this weekend I think. > > >>> > > >>> Please keep me posted if you find something. > > >>> > > >>> H. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Andy Schmidt wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have two older servers (but not same models or same purchase > > >>>> years) running Windows 2000 with mirrored disks > > (software Raid-1). > > >>>> > > >>>> Two days ago a customer noticed that they uploaded files > > to their > > >>>> FTP space, and initially they see the files on the > > browser - but a > > >>>> while later the data is corrupted. > > >>>> > > >>>> I investigated - and oddly enough the problem so far > > always seems > > >>>> to appear with small thumbnail graphics files that > > occupy less than > > >>>> 4095 bytes. > > >>>> When I > > >>>> inspect the files I may see the "correct" data through a > > share, but > > >>>> if I access the files through some other method, I > > always see the > > >>>> byte pattern of 0xDF. > > >>>> > > >>>> I ran a standalone checkdisk a day ago against the first server, > > >>>> sure enough, it reported and fixed several problems "Windows > > >>>> replaced bad clusters in file xxxx". But, the problem > > recurred the > > >>>> next > > >>>> > > > day. > > > > > >>>> Now, my first instinct was that ONE of the two mirrored > > disks was > > >>>> truly on its way out and depending on which drive was > > being used to > > >>>> read the data it would either get good or bad data. > > >>>> > > >>>> However, a day later a second customer had the same > > complaint but > > >>>> on an entirely different machine. In this case, the error occurs > > >>>> with a set of relatively new SCSI drives (not even a year old). > > >>>> > > >>>> So now that I'm looking at two totally different server models, > > >>>> from entirely different years, one with fairly new disks > > - what are > > >>>> the chances that the SAME problem and symptom would show at the > > >>>> same time. Both on software mirrored disks, in both cases files > > >>>> that are less than 4 MB large. > > >>>> > > >>>> Now I'm wondering if this is some "software" issue. > > >>>> > > >>>> Best Regards > > >>>> Andy Schmidt > > >>>> > > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of > > >>>> David Barker > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:53 PM > > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > > >>>> anew > > >>>> > > >>>> When the decludeproc services start under your windows > > services and > > >>>> the first email is processed. A file call diags.txt is > > created in > > >>>> your \Declude directory. > > >>>> This should contain the version and diagnostics. The > > valid options > > >>>> on decludeproc from the cmd prompt are: > > >>>> > > >>>> Decludeproc -v displays the version and build > > >>>> > > >>>> Decludeproc -i installs the decludeproc service > > >>>> > > >>>> Decludeproc -u uninstalls the decludeproc service > > >>>> > > >>>> David B > > >>>> www.declude.com > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of > > >>>> Andy Schmidt > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:43 PM > > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > > >>>> anew > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Dave - > > >>>> That's what I call catch 22: > > >>>> > > >>>> D:\IMail>decludeproc -diag > > >>>> Invalid command line parameter: > > >>>> -install Install Declude > > >>>> -diag Print diagnostics > > >>>> > > >>>> Hm - so let's see, after "-install", I used "-diag" to > > figure out > > >>>> what's wrong. But, "-diag" is invalid. The ony valid > > parameters are... > > >>>> "-install" > > >>>> and "-diag"? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Best Regards > > >>>> Andy Schmidt > > >>>> > > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of > > >>>> Andy Schmidt > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:09 PM > > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > > >>>> anew > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Dave, > > >>>> > > >>>> thanks. > > >>>> > > >>>> Next question: > > >>>> > > >>>> I noticed that your Virus.CFG is missing two options > > from Version 2: > > >>>> > > >>>> AUTOFORGE ON > > >>>> > > >>>> BANEZIPEXTS ON > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> If I recall correctly, the idea was that: > > >>>> BANZIPEXTS OFF > > >>>> # BANEXT EZIP > > >>>> BANEZIPEXTS ON > > >>>> > > >>>> would PERMIT banned extensions inside zipped files (where they > > >>>> could be scanned), but DENY banned extensions if they were > > >>>> contained inside encrypted zipped files. > > >>>> > > >>>> Where those options forgotten in your config file - or > > are they no > > >>>> longer available in Version 3? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Best Regards > > >>>> Andy Schmidt > > >>>> > > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of > > >>>> David Barker > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 02:43 PM > > >>>> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 > > >>>> anew > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> The Program Files\Declude is a temp directory that can > > be deleted > > >>>> after the install. The original purpose of this directory was to > > >>>> make available the latest configs as we do not overwrite your > > >>>> configs. This has since been removed in version 4.x > > where you will > > >>>> find a \Declude\Resources directory which has the same purpose. > > >>>> > > >>>> David B > > >>>> www.declude.com > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of > > >>>> Andy Schmidt > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:36 PM > > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Trying to install Declude 3.1.20 anew > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm trying to set up a server from scratch and thus > > downloaded and ran: > > >>>> > > >>>> Declude_IM_N310.exe > > >>>> > > >>>> and chose the option to let it do its install (rather than the > > >>>> option for "experienced" admins). PS - that screen has a typo! > > >>>> > > >>>> The setup created a > > >>>> C:\Program Files\Declude > > >>>> folder that contains just the 5 config files it also created the > > >>>> SAME files > > >>>> in: > > >>>> > > >>>> D:\Imail\Declude > > >>>> > > >>>> together with binaries and the various other Declude files. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm at loss! > > >>>> Which location is the "right" one for the config files (I'm > > >>>> assuming the D:\Imail\Declude)? > > >>>> > > >>>> What's the point of creating a "dummy" Folder in the C:\Program > > >>>> Files\ that contains no programs and that contains files > > that are > > >>>> not being used at all (assuming that being the case)? > > >>>> > > >>>> Should I be deleting this Program Files folder to avoid > > confusion > > >>>> when someone else maintains this server? > > >>>> > > >>>> Come on, the cold war has been over since Reagan - are we still > > >>>> trying to confuse the Russians? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Best Regards > > >>>> Andy Schmidt > > >>>> > > >>>> Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > >>>> Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 03:25 PM > > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Andrew, > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for your notes and their history. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm using the following settings right now: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> THREADS 30 > > >>>> WAITFORMAIL 500 > > >>>> WAITFORTHREADS 200 > > >>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100 > > >>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP OFF > > >>>> INVITEFIX ON > > >>>> AUTOREVIEW ON > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> There are a few reasons for trying these values. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> THREADS 30 - I'm pretty confident that dual 3.2 Ghz > > Xeons and > > >>>> RAID can only handle 30 threads with average messages. > > In reality, > > >>>> one single message can spike the system to 100%, but these are > > >>>> uncommon. I figure that if I open this up too wide and I am > > >>>> dealing with a backup or something, launching more > > threads when at > > >>>> 100% CPU utilization will actually slow the system down. > > This was > > >>>> the same with 2.x and before. There is added overhead > > to managing > > >>>> threads and you don't want that to happen on top of 100% CPU > > >>>> utilization. I am going to back up my server later > > tonight to see > > >>>> if I can't find what the magic number is since I don't > > want to be > > >>>> below that magic number, and it would probably be best to be a > > >>>> little above it. > > >>>> > > >>>> WAITFORMAIL 500 - On my server, this never kicks in, > > but if it > > >>>> did, it wouldn't make sense to delay for too long > > because I could > > >>>> build up messages. A half second seems good. > > >>>> > > >>>> WAITFORTHREADS 200 - This apparently kicks in only > > when I reach > > >>>> my thread limit; sort of like a throttle. I don't want it to be > > >>>> too long because this should only happen when I am > > hammered, but it > > >>>> is wise not to keep hammering when you are at 100%. Sort of a > > >>>> mixed bag choice here. > > >>>> > > >>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 100 - I see this setting as being the > > >>>> biggest issue with sizing a server. Setting it at 100 ms means > > >>>> that I can only handle 10 messages per second, and this > > establishes > > >>>> an upper limit for what > > >>>> the server can do. I currently average about 5 > > messages per second > > >>>> coming > > >>>> from my gateways at peak hours, so I figured that to be safe, I > > >>>> should double that value. > > >>>> > > >>>> INVITEFIX ON - I have it on because it comes on by > > default and > > >>>> I don't know any better. I know nothing about the cause for > > >>>> needing this outside of brief comments. It seems > > strange that my > > >>>> Declude setup could ruin an invitation unless I was > > using footers. > > >>>> If this is only triggered by footer use, I would like to know so > > >>>> that I could turn it off. I would imagine that this > > causes extra > > >>>> load to do the check. > > >>>> > > >>>> AUTOREVIEW ON - I have this on for the same reason > > that Andrew > > >>>> pointed out. When I restart Decludeproc, messages land in my > > >>>> review folder, and I don't wish to keep manually fishing things > > >>>> out. If there is an issue with looping, it would be wise for > > >>>> Declude to make this only trigger say every 15 minutes > > instead of > > >>>> more regularly. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Feel free to add to this if you want. > > >>>> > > >>>> Matt > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Colbeck, Andrew wrote: > > >>>> I'd second that... on both the observed behaviour and the > > >>>> request for documentation. > > >>>> I'm attaching my highly commented declude.cfg as a > > >>>> reasonable sample. > > >>>> Andrew 8) > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:36 AM > > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> David, > > >>>> > > >>>> That did the trick. I can't even see any messages in my > > >>>> proc folder any more. I might suggest adding your > > explanation to > > >>>> the comments in the file just in case others feel the > > need to turn > > >>>> this on like I did. I recalled the issues from the list and I > > >>>> turned it on because I didn't want the possibility of > > DNS crapping > > >>>> out and the leakage that this would cause. > > >>>> > > >>>> Here's a screen cap of what my processor graph looks like > > >>>> now: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> > > >>>> Matt > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> David Barker wrote: > > >>>> The purpose of WINSOCKCLEANUP ON is to reset > > >>>> the winsock, what > > >>>> happens when using this setting is that when > > the \proc > > >>>> directory hit 0 > > >>>> decludeproc will finish processing all the > > messages in > > >>>> the \work before > > >>>> checking the \proc again. As WINSOCKCLEANUP is to be > > >>>> used only by those who > > >>>> experience DNS issues I would suggest running your > > >>>> tests again with > > >>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP commented out and see how the > > behavior > > >>>> differs. Also having > > >>>> the WAITFORMAIL to low can cause the CPU to process > > >>>> very high as it is > > >>>> constantly checking the \proc I would > > suggest a minimum > > >>>> of 500-1000 > > >>>> > > >>>> David B > > >>>> www.declude.com > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf > > >>>> Of Matt > > >>>> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:12 PM > > >>>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Experience with 4.x > > >>>> > > >>>> Darrell, > > >>>> > > >>>> I put up two Windows Explorer windows side-by-side > > >>>> under normal volume and the pattern was > > consistent where > > >>>> the proc folder > > >>>> grows while the work folder shrinks until > > the work folder > > >>>> hits zero > > >>>> at which point the proc folder empties out > > and everything > > >>>> lands in work > > >>>> and then the pattern repeats with proc > > growing while work > > >>>> shrinks. > > >>>> > > >>>> My settings are as follows: > > >>>> > > >>>> THREADS 50 > > >>>> WAITFORMAIL 100 > > >>>> WAITFORTHREADS 10 > > >>>> WAITBETWEENTHREADS 50 > > >>>> WINSOCKCLEANUP ON > > >>>> AUTOREVIEW ON > > >>>> INVITEFIX ON > > >>>> > > >>>> Matt > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> It's a faulty design that leaves > > >>>> more than half a server's CPU > > capacity unused due > > >>>> to the mere fact > > >>>> that they wait for all threads to > > complete before > > >>>> moving in a new > > >>>> batch. > > >>>> > > >>>> I can't speak to what you see on your > > >>>> server, but that is not how it is running on my > > >>>> server. I just double > > >>>> checked again to make sure I am not > > crazy, but as I > > >>>> watch the thread > > >>>> count on my server (decludeproc) the threads > > >>>> fluctuate between > > >>>> 7 - 30 ( threads currently set to 50). > > It is not > > >>>> uncommon to see the > > >>>> threads move as follow: > > 11,8,10,7,15,.... While I > > >>>> was watching it I > > >>>> never seen a case where it went down low > > enough for > > >>>> the WAITFORMAIL > > >>>> setting to kick in. Watching the > > proc/work directory > > >>>> you can see > > >>>> files moving in and out, but never > > really emptying > > >>>> out. Its possible > > >>>> what I am seeing is an anomaly or maybe I am > > >>>> interpreting it wrong. > > >>>> > > >>>> Maybe David can comment on this. > > >>>> > > >>>> Darrell > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > >>>> invURIBL - Intelligent URI filtering plug-in > > >>>> for Declude, mxGuard, and ORF. Stop spam at the > > >>>> source the > > >>>> spamvertised domain. More effective > > than traditional > > >>>> RBL's. Try it today - > > >>>> http://www.invariantsystems.com > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 > > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 > > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 > > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 > > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 > > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> 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 > > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> --- > > >>> 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 > > >>> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> --- > > >> 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 > > >> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --- > > >> 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 > > >> http://www.mail-archive.com. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > 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 > > > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > 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 > > > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > 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 http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > > > > > --- > 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 http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > > > > --- > 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 http://www.mail-archive.com. --- 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 http://www.mail-archive.com.
