Greetings, Grant. On 8 декабря 2006 г., 19:00:04 you wrote: > 1. We have one domain where [EMAIL PROTECTED] is receiving mail addressed to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] without being bcc'd, carbon copied, or included as a > recipient. How did you conclude that the original RCPT TO: command in SMTP session pointed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind, that the real recipient of a message is the one that was specified in SMTP session, not the one included in "To:" field in message headers.
> 2. Subscribers to at least three EZMLM mailing lists on two different > domains are getting messages from the EZMLM program letting them know > that some messages to them are bouncing. At least two of the bounced > messages are being returned due to error code 5.5.0/550. All of the > subscribers/recipients are using different email providers. Check out this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09360.html and the temporarily solution I provided here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09467.html If you're experienced enough to patch and recompile qmail-dk and qmail-smtpd, use the following patch for qmail-smtpd to enable more verbose logging: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09582.html and ask me to send you qmail-dk patch, as it was once a while ago sent to this list, but somehow it managed not to get onto web-archive. > 3. Our users are getting lots of spam. > ==>CUT<== > week, and the spam is learned server-wide. Domain-specific and > user-specific learning is not enabled. That is not the best decision, bayest is by it's nature an individual algorithm, and it works good only when used personally, with a separate DB for each user and an ability for each user to train it the way one likes. > However, despite all of these steps, several of our users have reported > that they are not noticing a reduction in the volume of spam that they > are receiving. Try to track out, why does some user get less spam, while other tells, that all remains 'just the same, maybe even worse'. It looks like for me that they are misleading you, and they want you to invent an 'Ideal 100% Efficient SPAM Filter' (TM) ;-). > Is there anything else we can do to simplify and/or improve this > process? You may consider buying and installing some commercial ANTI-Spam services, like Kaspersky Anti-Spam: http://www.kaspersky.com/linux_antispam -- Best regards, Alexey Loukianov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] System Engineer, IT Department, Lavtech Corp --------------------------------------------------------------------- QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
