Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
IMail 8 and WHITELIST AUTH, along with whitelisting your own IP space solves a lot of potential problems. I think this is what you are talking about, or at least that seems to be the limit of what is possible with pure automation in this environment. Matt Sanford Whiteman wrote: No, that can't be done. Didn't think so. :) So, like I was saying, when determining whether a local sender is allowed to relay (or is a "preferred sender," including relay and delivery), central to that is determining whether the sender even exists. By the logic of just checking the _domain_ to determine whether a session is preferred, nonexistent senders can get elevated permissions. Anyway, what do y'all think about the preferred sender kind of concept? --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
Re[4]: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
> No, that can't be done. Didn't think so. :) So, like I was saying, when determining whether a local sender is allowed to relay (or is a "preferred sender," including relay and delivery), central to that is determining whether the sender even exists. By the logic of just checking the _domain_ to determine whether a session is preferred, nonexistent senders can get elevated permissions. Anyway, what do y'all think about the preferred sender kind of concept? --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
> ...which is normally a PCI-33 Bus... I don't know why you'd say that: all of the servers we're building now are PCI-X, with multiple buses at that. Good points for anybody using an old chassis, of course. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re[3]: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
> Actually, that's what Declude JunkMail currently does. This lets > Declude JunkMail know whether the envelope sender is a local address > or not. We can automatically dump messages from nonexistent local users? I guess I feel kind of dumb after my rant, then, since I didn't know there was a test for that. How to? No, that can't be done. > What I'm talking about above is determining if the user has > permission to relay mail (and therefore the DUL/DYNA/etc. tests > should not apply to the user). Ah, I think I see...this is different from the information used by WHITELIST AUTH, as it must also account for relay-for-IP permissions. Exactly. :) -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re[3]: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
> Actually, that's what Declude JunkMail currently does. This lets > Declude JunkMail know whether the envelope sender is a local address > or not. We can automatically dump messages from nonexistent local users? I guess I feel kind of dumb after my rant, then, since I didn't know there was a test for that. How to? > What I'm talking about above is determining if the user has > permission to relay mail (and therefore the DUL/DYNA/etc. tests > should not apply to the user). Ah, I think I see...this is different from the information used by WHITELIST AUTH, as it must also account for relay-for-IP permissions. I understand why you wouldn't want to reach for the .loc, either. Perhaps a new test type that allows one to put CIDRs in a text file which is then combined with the AUTH check to set a %PREFERREDSESSION% kind of flag. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Just for those who plan to run a high-speed Raid: The todays bottleneck is not only the Raid-Controller, it's more about shared PCI-bus (LAN and RAID Controller) which is normally a PCI-33 Bus: PCI-33 133MB/s burst rate on 32bit/33MHz PCI bus (32bit x 33Mhz=105600bit/s, divided by 8 = 132'000'000B/s) PCI-66 266MB/s burst rate on 32bit/66MHz PCI bus (32bit x 66Mhz=211200bits/s) PCI 64bit 33Mhz 266MB/s burst rate on 64bit/33MHz PCI bus (64bit x 33Mhz=105600bits/s) Requires 64bit OS and expensive chipset (systemworks/special ram because of the chipset etc.) as far as I know. PCI 64bit 66Mhz 266MB/s burst rate on 64bit/33MHz PCI bus (64bit x 33Mhz=105600bits/s) Requires 64bit OS. PCI-X 1.0 (66,100,133Mhz) speed from 133MB-1066MB/s or more A motherboard with pci-x slots downgrades all pci-x slots to the slowest pci card used in one po the pci-x slot. PCI-X 2.0 2132MB/s or 4264MB/s PCI Express 512MB/s - 16GB/s Read more about PCI-X here: http://www.connecttech.com/KnowledgeDatabase/kdb290.htm You can find more pci info's here: http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040301/alderwood-11.html If you would like to know which intel chipset is supporting which pci bus, look here: http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/embedded/ Adrian - ToadShow Pty Ltd phone: 07 3004 7900 fax: 07 3846 1220 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.toadshow.com.au - - Original Message - From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:01 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Matt, I agree with you. I am now confused, as I though it was better to separate physical Spans/Sets/groups by task, not logical partitions on one span/set/group by task. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Ok, I'll bury this for the sake of everyone else on this list (though I though the full discussion wouldn't hurt since the topic comes up in brief often so I kept it here). Basically you are saying throw 4 disks into a span and mirror the span (8 drives total, one disk seen by the system, and partitioned into logical drives only for personal preference and not performance). I was under the assumption that the logic was to separate spans for different tasks, in other words have multiple RAID 10 arrays instead of dedicating everything to just one. I can see how redundancy isn't really an issue and performance is better than RAID 50 in this case with the only drawback being wasted space, but that is of no consequence here. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise thanks for the discussion :) Matt Keith Anderson wrote: The harse ain dead yet. Well, first thing is all RAID levels create one single volume that combines the total available drive space. No matter what RAID level you use, all 10 drives become one big volume, just like the 24-drive RAID 10 that I've got here. You can partition it through Windows only if you want to have more than one volume. Raid 10 will always be the fastest redundant RAID. Again, let's examine the process for a 4-disk system: WRITE RAID 10: Write to primary stripe (half of the drives, high-priority CPU cycles) Copy to backup stripe (half of the drives, delayed, idle-time CPU cycles) WRITE RAID 5: Write to primary stripe (high-priority CPU cycles to all drives) READ RAID 10: Read from primary stripe (half the drives) READ RAID 5: Read from the whole stripe (all of the drives) There's also a calculative processor delay in RAID5 that RAID 10 doesn't have to worry about. RAID 10 always knows where the data needs to go, RAID 5 has to figure it out, then create a parity block for every stripe. You need to examine why you are asking this question-- what is your real storage need, performance vs. volume size vs. security? Do you need the extra usable space with RAID 5 more than you need the 30-40% boost in performance that you get with RAID 10? Do you need RAID 10's extra security of surviving a double-drive failure? Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Not to beat a dead horse, but... Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0 plus a slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID 5 with 4 disks would out perform two striped drives despite the overhead. There is another issue though. I can only get 10 drive in a packed 3U chassis, so I could only do two RAID 10 arrays, but with RAID 50, drive partitions wouldn't matter if I'm not mistaken
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
> This of course brings up another question: Is there a way for > Declude JunkMail to find out accurately if the sender is really a > local user or not? If by sender you mean the envelope sender, and not the username used for SMTP AUTH, I don't see why not. Actually, that's what Declude JunkMail currently does. This lets Declude JunkMail know whether the envelope sender is a local address or not. What I'm talking about above is determining if the user has permission to relay mail (and therefore the DUL/DYNA/etc. tests should not apply to the user). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
> I don't see how it's possible to get better performance by > aggregating all of the disks and then partitioning them out. It's not that you always get better performance by aggregating, it's that you _don't_ always get better performance the other way, while always adding complexity. If 'Application 1' and 'Application 2' have exactly identical disk I/O demands, creating identical dedicated arrays 'RAID 1 Array 1' and 'RAID 1 Array 2' can be considered to have basically the same performance as one RAID 10 array, albeit with surplus complexity. If 'Application 1' and 'Application 2' have asymmetrical demands, however, that setup rewards one unnecessarily and punishes the other. In another message, I noted situations in which separate arrays would be preferable. > I always thought the rule was to separate logical processes across > separate spindles whenever possible and practical. I'd phrase the rule "Give as many spindles as possible to each independent function," so in some cases the spindles may be shared between functions, but each function can use more of them, which both limits contention by concurrent processes and also enables a function to perform optimally when there is no contention (i.e. asymmetry). But I think the rule is really less a hardware requirement than an _awareness_ requirement--what you'll do when you have the need and/or money. It's essential to realize what the current/future bottlenecks might be on a server, even if you don't take action right now, which means dissecting the applications you currently run and those you might pop in. > Kind of like the *nix people bashing the M$ people. Kind of like the term 'M$'...:o) --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Another good example is when you setup a domain controller in the Windows 2000 family, caching is disabled on the physical drives that contain the active directory. Since you can't get around that (without applying a few hacks to system files), it's best to put the active directory on a pair of mirror drives that are separate from everything else on that machine. > There _is_ one good reason to create separate RAID arrays of > the same RAID level hanging off the same card, and that is > if you want to use different stripe sizes for different [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Enchancment suggestion
While we're working on config files, how about per-domain virus configs? hint, hint... Darin. - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Enchancment suggestion >I was reading another thread that digressed into the topic about the >difficulty of keeping up with the latest .cfg file while maintaining the >mail administrator s customized .cfg > >I would like to suggest that perhaps a different approach to managing the >.cfg files could be implemented. It would be really nifty to have a base >.cfg file and a separate .cfg file that holds an admin s changes. This >method works well in BSD style configuration files. > >That way the good folks at declude could keep the base .cfg files updated >and the admin s could conviently replace their base cfg file. The diff >file for lack of a better word would store the admin s tweeks, which would >include addtions and subtractions from the base. That actually sounds like a good idea. That would also work well for people who have Declude running on multiple servers, and want to have one source for the config file, but have different activation codes on each server (the activation code could go into the config file that is manually updated). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
I know that I’m coming into this late and I’m a little confused about much of this discussion. I don’t see how it’s possible to get better performance by aggregating all of the disks and then partitioning them out. This will still create contention when more than one partition is needed because they are on the same spindles. I always thought the rule was to separate logical processes across separate spindles whenever possible and practical. This would mean that multiple RAID sets would be faster when allocating a RAID set to each of the following separately: Windows system Swap file (or even multiple swap files on multiple RAID sets) Imail system Logging Webmail/calendaring Now this would get expensive, but we are discussing performance here, right? Going back to the SCSI vs. SATA price/performance issue: I have used SCSI for many moons and they are rock solid, but very expensive. However, I usually end up replacing a drive every couple of years. So my definition of rock solid is “no data loss” and “not more than one dead drive each year”. That’s acceptable to me. Besides, I can have RAID keep a hot spare to auto-rebuild the array and then I can hot replace the dead drive to become a new hot spare. It seems that SATA controllers and drives can now give me this level of reliability. And we have already agreed to the SATA performance being virtually equal to SCSI performance. Now it just sounds like SCSI bigotry. Kind of like the *nix people bashing the M$ people. Todd Holt Xidix Technologies, Inc Las Vegas, NV USA 702.319.4349 www.xidix.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists) Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Matt, I agree with you. I am now confused, as I though it was better to separate physical Spans/Sets/groups by task, not logical partitions on one span/set/group by task. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Ok, I'll bury this for the sake of everyone else on this list (though I though the full discussion wouldn't hurt since the topic comes up in brief often so I kept it here). Basically you are saying throw 4 disks into a span and mirror the span (8 drives total, one disk seen by the system, and partitioned into logical drives only for personal preference and not performance). I was under the assumption that the logic was to separate spans for different tasks, in other words have multiple RAID 10 arrays instead of dedicating everything to just one. I can see how redundancy isn't really an issue and performance is better than RAID 50 in this case with the only drawback being wasted space, but that is of no consequence here. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise thanks for the discussion :) Matt Keith Anderson wrote: The harse ain dead yet. Well, first thing is all RAID levels create one single volume thatcombines the total available drive space. No matter what RAID level youuse, all 10 drives become one big volume, just like the 24-drive RAID 10that I've got here. You can partition it through Windows only if youwant to have more than one volume. Raid 10 will always be the fastest redundant RAID. Again, let's examinethe process for a 4-disk system: WRITE RAID 10: Write to primary stripe (half of the drives, high-priority CPU cycles) Copy to backup stripe (half of the drives, delayed, idle-time CPUcycles) WRITE RAID 5: Write to primary stripe (high-priority CPU cycles to all drives) READ RAID 10: Read from primary stripe (half the drives) READ RAID 5: Read from the whole stripe (all of the drives) There's also a calculative processor delay in RAID5 that RAID 10 doesn'thave to worry about. RAID 10 always knows where the data needs to go,RAID 5 has to figure it out, then create a parity block for everystripe. You need to examine why you are asking this question-- what is your realstorage need, performance vs. volume size vs. security? Do you need theextra usable space with RAID 5 more than you need the 30-40% boost inperformance that you get with RAID 10? Do you need RAID 10's extrasecurity of surviving a double-drive failure? Keith -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of MattSent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:06 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Not to beat a dead horse, but... Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0 plus a slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID 5 with 4 disks would out perform two striped drives despite the overhead
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
> This of course brings up another question: Is there a way for > Declude JunkMail to find out accurately if the sender is really a > local user or not? If by sender you mean the envelope sender, and not the username used for SMTP AUTH, I don't see why not. If the domain is a local domain, the IMail userbase is certainly available to applications running on the server (with the exception of peering setups). So I'd say the problem is not the _availability_ of the userbase per se, but the resources utilized by such lookups against slow/remote userbases. There've been a couple of threads on the IMail Forum about this, and each time it comes up as if it were a brand-new function to be done by IMail itself, I point out that the code is clearly already present: this exact step is done by IMail when using the famously insecure relay option 'Relay for Local Users,' but skipped when using the mandatory AUTH/IP options, and of course skipped for non-relayed mail. Just a little reshuffling on their end, and...:) I think it might be better to start putting pressure on Ipswitch through the IMail Forum than by trying to do the lookups using Declude's process-per-message architecture. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
> Matt, I agree with you. I am now confused, as I though it was better > to separate physical Spans/Sets/groups by task, not logical > partitions on one span/set/group by task. When you create separate RAID arrays, these are presented to the OS as separate physical disks, so you are _also_ creating separate logical partitions, since you can't create standard OS-level partitions across physical disks. It isn't really a question of physical-vs.-logical, it's logical-vs.-physical-and-logical. I've never seen any benchmarks that suggest that creating more arrays of the same RAID level on the same controller gives better performance than utilizing as many drives as possible in a single array, if the striping/spanning option is there. There _is_ one good reason to create separate RAID arrays of the same RAID level hanging off the same card, and that is if you want to use different stripe sizes for different application functions based on the expected size pattern of disk reads and writes. This can be very smart for some situations. Other rationales (persuasive in some cases) are (a) to enable capacity expansion for some application functions without affecting other functions in any way, and (b) to allow an entire functional array to be moved to a new controller when purchased. If you're doing it for some other reason, like a performance boost with a default config of each array...I don't think so. Remember also that, even if separate arrays might otherwise be harmless, following through with that design decision when using enclosures that can only hold a certain number of drives can disallow, for example, RAID 10, and force you to instead use two RAID 1 arrays that may be used unevenly. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
R. Scott Perry wrote: Actually, the issue here is: > X-MailPure: SMTP Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Declude JunkMail is assuming that this is a local sender, and therefore skipping the test (since DYNA/DUL tests should not be applied to local users). This of course brings up another question: Is there a way for Declude JunkMail to find out accurately if the sender is really a local user or not? That, however, can get very tricky (nearly impossible on IMail versions before v8, difficult on v8). A closer look also showed that it skipped the real DUL tests also. I have an idea that could help me and others running IMail 8 and WHITELIST AUTH...you could provide a switch to disable DUL skipping for local senders (forged or otherwise) since it wouldn't be any benefit under those conditions. Naturally a global method would be better, but if it's not readily possible, a limited patch is better than nothing. BTW, I found myself in need of either turning off vulnerability checking today or disabling just the Partial Vulnerability, and the switch you provided there came in handy. Thanks. Matt -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Enchancment suggestion
I was reading another thread that digressed into the topic about the difficulty of keeping up with the latest .cfg file while maintaining the mail administrator s customized .cfg I would like to suggest that perhaps a different approach to managing the .cfg files could be implemented. It would be really nifty to have a base .cfg file and a separate .cfg file that holds an admin s changes. This method works well in BSD style configuration files. That way the good folks at declude could keep the base .cfg files updated and the admin s could conviently replace their base cfg file. The diff file for lack of a better word would store the admin s tweeks, which would include addtions and subtractions from the base. That actually sounds like a good idea. That would also work well for people who have Declude running on multiple servers, and want to have one source for the config file, but have different activation codes on each server (the activation code could go into the config file that is manually updated). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
The message came from a last hop that should have tripped all 4 of these tests, but for some reason it missed both (DYNA) tests. The only thing that I can come up with is some bug related to the second hop which has a reserved IP forged in the headers (along with my domain forged). This technique of separating (DYNA) and (ALL) otherwise has been working reliably to the best of my knowledge for several months. I did also check to see if the private IP tripped those tests as the results suggest, and it wasn't listed. Could this be related to some internal intelligence for skipping lookups on private IP's throwing off the DYNA skipping? Actually, the issue here is: > X-MailPure: SMTP Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Declude JunkMail is assuming that this is a local sender, and therefore skipping the test (since DYNA/DUL tests should not be applied to local users). This of course brings up another question: Is there a way for Declude JunkMail to find out accurately if the sender is really a local user or not? That, however, can get very tricky (nearly impossible on IMail versions before v8, difficult on v8). -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Enhancement suggestion
Title: Enchancment suggestion I do that type of thing with separate files for the different sections of the config files. I then update the section I need to, and then run the batch file which uses echo. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Agid, Corby Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Enchancment suggestion I was reading another thread that digressed into the topic about the difficulty of keeping up with the latest .cfg file while maintaining the mail administrator’s customized .cfg I would like to suggest that perhaps a different approach to managing the .cfg files could be implemented. It would be really nifty to have a “base” .cfg file and a separate .cfg file that holds an admin’s changes. This method works well in BSD style configuration files. That way the good folks at declude could keep the base .cfg files updated and the admin’s could conviently replace their base cfg file. The “diff” file for lack of a better word would store the admin’s tweeks, which would include addtions and subtractions from the base. Just my 2cents. Corby
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Matt, I agree with you. I am now confused, as I though it was better to separate physical Spans/Sets/groups by task, not logical partitions on one span/set/group by task. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Ok, I'll bury this for the sake of everyone else on this list (though I though the full discussion wouldn't hurt since the topic comes up in brief often so I kept it here). Basically you are saying throw 4 disks into a span and mirror the span (8 drives total, one disk seen by the system, and partitioned into logical drives only for personal preference and not performance). I was under the assumption that the logic was to separate spans for different tasks, in other words have multiple RAID 10 arrays instead of dedicating everything to just one. I can see how redundancy isn't really an issue and performance is better than RAID 50 in this case with the only drawback being wasted space, but that is of no consequence here. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise thanks for the discussion :) Matt Keith Anderson wrote: The harse ain dead yet. Well, first thing is all RAID levels create one single volume thatcombines the total available drive space. No matter what RAID level youuse, all 10 drives become one big volume, just like the 24-drive RAID 10that I've got here. You can partition it through Windows only if youwant to have more than one volume. Raid 10 will always be the fastest redundant RAID. Again, let's examinethe process for a 4-disk system: WRITE RAID 10: Write to primary stripe (half of the drives, high-priority CPU cycles) Copy to backup stripe (half of the drives, delayed, idle-time CPUcycles) WRITE RAID 5: Write to primary stripe (high-priority CPU cycles to all drives) READ RAID 10: Read from primary stripe (half the drives) READ RAID 5: Read from the whole stripe (all of the drives) There's also a calculative processor delay in RAID5 that RAID 10 doesn'thave to worry about. RAID 10 always knows where the data needs to go,RAID 5 has to figure it out, then create a parity block for everystripe. You need to examine why you are asking this question-- what is your realstorage need, performance vs. volume size vs. security? Do you need theextra usable space with RAID 5 more than you need the 30-40% boost inperformance that you get with RAID 10? Do you need RAID 10's extrasecurity of surviving a double-drive failure? Keith -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of MattSent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:06 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Not to beat a dead horse, but... Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0 plus a slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID 5 with 4 disks would out perform two striped drives despite the overhead. There is another issue though. I can only get 10 drive in a packed 3U chassis, so I could only do two RAID 10 arrays, but with RAID 50, drive partitions wouldn't matter if I'm not mistaken, 1 would be the same as 5 partitions, or close enough at least. With 8 disks in RAID 10, I could only separate the disk I/O for two logical drives. Matt [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] ---[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] ---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. Tounsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], andtype "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be foundat http://www.mail-archive.com. -- =MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.http://www.mailpure.com/software/=
[Declude.JunkMail] Possible bug with reserved IP's???
Scott, Excuse me for yacking up a storm, but I do have something totally on topic that I came across recently. The headers below show a message that missed hitting on some DNSBL's. I'm using a bit of a trick here in that both DSBL and XBL are defined twice, once with (DYNA) appended so that a last hop gets scored exclusively, and once with (ALL) where it will scan on any hit up to 4 hops down. My config looks like the following: DSBL(DYNA)ip4rlist.dsbl.org127.0.0.250 DSBL(ALL)ip4rlist.dsbl.org127.0.0.220 XBL(DYNA)ip4rsbl-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.460 XBL(ALL)ip4rsbl-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.420 The message came from a last hop that should have tripped all 4 of these tests, but for some reason it missed both (DYNA) tests. The only thing that I can come up with is some bug related to the second hop which has a reserved IP forged in the headers (along with my domain forged). This technique of separating (DYNA) and (ALL) otherwise has been working reliably to the best of my knowledge for several months. I did also check to see if the private IP tripped those tests as the results suggest, and it wasn't listed. Could this be related to some internal intelligence for skipping lookups on private IP's throwing off the DYNA skipping? Thanks, Matt Received: from schexnayder1 [68.114.98.141] by igaia.com (SMTPD32-8.05) id A4C61E50274; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:01:26 -0500 Received: from schexnayder1 [192.168.1.101] by igaia.com with SMTP; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:01:20 -0600 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Margaret Nolan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: my free webcam Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:01:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: iPHP Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] XMP-Context: X-MailPure: X-MailPure: DSBL(ALL): Failed, listed in list.dsbl.org (weight 2). X-MailPure: XBL(ALL): Failed, listed in sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org (weight 2). X-MailPure: LEGITCONTENT: Passed, legitimate content detected (weight -2). X-MailPure: FORGEDFROM: Message failed FORGEDFROM test (weight 2). X-MailPure: DYNAMIC: Message failed DYNAMIC test (line 103, weight 2) (weight capped at 2). X-MailPure: IPLINKED: Message failed IPLINKED test (line 134, weight 3) (weight capped at 3). X-MailPure: X-MailPure: Spam Score: 9 X-MailPure: Scan Time: 18:01:41 on 03/25/2004 X-MailPure: Spool File: D64c601e502742c91.SMD X-MailPure: Server Name: schexnayder1 X-MailPure: SMTP Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MailPure: Received From: cable-68-114-98-141.sli.la.charter.com [68.114.98.141] X-MailPure: Country Chain: UNITED STATES->destination X-MailPure: X-MailPure: Spam and virus blocking services provided by MailPure.com X-MailPure: -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
[Declude.JunkMail] Enchancment suggestion
Title: Enchancment suggestion I was reading another thread that digressed into the topic about the difficulty of keeping up with the latest .cfg file while maintaining the mail administrator’s customized .cfg I would like to suggest that perhaps a different approach to managing the .cfg files could be implemented. It would be really nifty to have a “base” .cfg file and a separate .cfg file that holds an admin’s changes. This method works well in BSD style configuration files. That way the good folks at declude could keep the base .cfg files updated and the admin’s could conviently replace their base cfg file. The “diff” file for lack of a better word would store the admin’s tweeks, which would include addtions and subtractions from the base. Just my 2cents. Corby
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Ok, I'll bury this for the sake of everyone else on this list (though I though the full discussion wouldn't hurt since the topic comes up in brief often so I kept it here). Basically you are saying throw 4 disks into a span and mirror the span (8 drives total, one disk seen by the system, and partitioned into logical drives only for personal preference and not performance). I was under the assumption that the logic was to separate spans for different tasks, in other words have multiple RAID 10 arrays instead of dedicating everything to just one. I can see how redundancy isn't really an issue and performance is better than RAID 50 in this case with the only drawback being wasted space, but that is of no consequence here. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise thanks for the discussion :) Matt Keith Anderson wrote: The harse ain dead yet. Well, first thing is all RAID levels create one single volume that combines the total available drive space. No matter what RAID level you use, all 10 drives become one big volume, just like the 24-drive RAID 10 that I've got here. You can partition it through Windows only if you want to have more than one volume. Raid 10 will always be the fastest redundant RAID. Again, let's examine the process for a 4-disk system: WRITE RAID 10: Write to primary stripe (half of the drives, high-priority CPU cycles) Copy to backup stripe (half of the drives, delayed, idle-time CPU cycles) WRITE RAID 5: Write to primary stripe (high-priority CPU cycles to all drives) READ RAID 10: Read from primary stripe (half the drives) READ RAID 5: Read from the whole stripe (all of the drives) There's also a calculative processor delay in RAID5 that RAID 10 doesn't have to worry about. RAID 10 always knows where the data needs to go, RAID 5 has to figure it out, then create a parity block for every stripe. You need to examine why you are asking this question-- what is your real storage need, performance vs. volume size vs. security? Do you need the extra usable space with RAID 5 more than you need the 30-40% boost in performance that you get with RAID 10? Do you need RAID 10's extra security of surviving a double-drive failure? Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller Not to beat a dead horse, but... Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0 plus a slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID 5 with 4 disks would out perform two striped drives despite the overhead. There is another issue though. I can only get 10 drive in a packed 3U chassis, so I could only do two RAID 10 arrays, but with RAID 50, drive partitions wouldn't matter if I'm not mistaken, 1 would be the same as 5 partitions, or close enough at least. With 8 disks in RAID 10, I could only separate the disk I/O for two logical drives. Matt [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Options for Junkmail/Virus
Doesn't he need JunkMail Pro for gatewaying though? (treated as outbound) That is correct. Declude JunkMail Pro is required for scanning E-mail on domains that IMail acts as a gateway for. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Options for Junkmail/Virus
Sorry for being wrong about the Pro thing. Just trying to help. Doesn't he need JunkMail Pro for gatewaying though? (treated as outbound) Matt R. Scott Perry wrote: Is it possible to do the following: With IMail host some domains and have some domains simply forwarded (This I know works) Can I Junkmail but not AV one domain Another domain AV but not Junkmail Another domain do both Another Domain do neither Yes. With the Standard version of both products, you can use the per-domain settings to accomplish that. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
The harse ain dead yet. Well, first thing is all RAID levels create one single volume that combines the total available drive space. No matter what RAID level you use, all 10 drives become one big volume, just like the 24-drive RAID 10 that I've got here. You can partition it through Windows only if you want to have more than one volume. Raid 10 will always be the fastest redundant RAID. Again, let's examine the process for a 4-disk system: WRITE RAID 10: Write to primary stripe (half of the drives, high-priority CPU cycles) Copy to backup stripe (half of the drives, delayed, idle-time CPU cycles) WRITE RAID 5: Write to primary stripe (high-priority CPU cycles to all drives) READ RAID 10: Read from primary stripe (half the drives) READ RAID 5: Read from the whole stripe (all of the drives) There's also a calculative processor delay in RAID5 that RAID 10 doesn't have to worry about. RAID 10 always knows where the data needs to go, RAID 5 has to figure it out, then create a parity block for every stripe. You need to examine why you are asking this question-- what is your real storage need, performance vs. volume size vs. security? Do you need the extra usable space with RAID 5 more than you need the 30-40% boost in performance that you get with RAID 10? Do you need RAID 10's extra security of surviving a double-drive failure? Keith > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller > > Not to beat a dead horse, but... > > Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out > performing one RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do > double RAID 0 plus a slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID > 5 with 4 disks would out perform two striped drives despite > the overhead. > > There is another issue though. I can only get 10 drive in a > packed 3U chassis, so I could only do two RAID 10 arrays, but > with RAID 50, drive partitions wouldn't matter if I'm not > mistaken, 1 would be the same as 5 partitions, or close > enough at least. With 8 disks in RAID 10, I could only > separate the disk I/O for two logical drives. > > Matt [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Options for Junkmail/Virus
Is it possible to do the following: With IMail host some domains and have some domains simply forwarded (This I know works) Can I Junkmail but not AV one domain Another domain AV but not Junkmail Another domain do both Another Domain do neither Yes. With the Standard version of both products, you can use the per-domain settings to accomplish that. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Options for Junkmail/Virus
Yes, but you need the Pro versions of both Declude JunkMail and Virus to do so. When you get around to configuring it, there may be some information buried in the archives, but most definitely read up in the manuals for "per-domain settings", and then post to the list whatever is unclear. You will also want to search the IMail knowledge base for information on how to gateway domains, it requires an IP to be entered into the SMTP security settings and also an entry in your HOSTS file. Matt Goran Jovanovic wrote: Hi all, Is it possible to do the following: With IMail host some domains and have some domains simply forwarded (This I know works) Can I Junkmail but not AV one domain Another domain AV but not Junkmail Another domain do both Another Domain do neither Thanx Goran Jovanovic The LAN Shoppe 2345 Yonge Street, Suite 302 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2E5 Phone: (416) 440-1167 x-2113 Cell: (416) 931-0688 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
Hi Todd- Maybe aplus is mining enom's database somehow. Stranger things have happened. One other thought: If somebody had access to the root servers, they could theoretically do a day-to-day comparison of all domains, then do WHOIS lookups on anything new. It would be a massive amount of data, but it could be done. -Dave - Original Message - From: "Todd Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain > Dave, > > I thought that might be the case so I called my rep an enom.com > and she says the Do Not sell, or share info, although she did say that > aplus.net is one of their resellers/customers. > > I chose enom.com based on recommendations from people here on the > list but I have never had this happen before with other registars. > > > Todd > > > > At 02:45 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, you wrote: > >Todd- > > > >Sounds like your registrar is selling their data. > > > >I've never had such a sales call using either Bulk Register or Network > >Solutions > > > >-Dave Doherty > > Skywaves, Inc. > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Todd Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:11 PM > >Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain > > > > > > > I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from > > > aplus.net asking if I needed the domain web site hosted. I was a little > > > concerned because I don't want them calling my clients as soon as a new > > > domain is registered. > > > > > > I assume that they pulled the whois info from newly registered domain but > >I > > > don't know how they get it, or so quickly. > > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > >(http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > >(http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
[Declude.JunkMail] Options for Junkmail/Virus
Hi all, Is it possible to do the following: With IMail host some domains and have some domains simply forwarded (This I know works) Can I Junkmail but not AV one domain Another domain AV but not Junkmail Another domain do both Another Domain do neither Thanx Goran Jovanovic The LAN Shoppe 2345 Yonge Street, Suite 302 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2E5 Phone: (416) 440-1167 x-2113 Cell: (416) 931-0688 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Correction... "RAID 10 will do double a single drive plus a slight hit for mirroring and for striping" Matt Matt wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0 plus a slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID 5 with 4 disks would out perform two striped drives despite the overhead. There is another issue though. I can only get 10 drive in a packed 3U chassis, so I could only do two RAID 10 arrays, but with RAID 50, drive partitions wouldn't matter if I'm not mistaken, 1 would be the same as 5 partitions, or close enough at least. With 8 disks in RAID 10, I could only separate the disk I/O for two logical drives. Matt Keith Anderson wrote: Nah, RAID 10's performance will always be twice as fast as RAID 50. Look at the writes required: WRITE to RAID 10: Write data to primary stripe Copy to backup stripe WRITE to RAID 50: Write data to primary stripe Update the parity on primary stripe Copy data to secondary stripe Update the parity on secondary stripe READ from RAID 10: Read data from primary stripe (half of the drives) READ from RAID 50: Read data from primary and secondary stripes (all of the drives) The advantage of RAID 50 over RAID 10 is better economy of drive space. Consider six drives, all 100 gigabytes: RAID 10: Three drives for storage Three drives for backup Total usuable space = 300 gigs RAID 50: Two drives on each stripe used for storage One drive on each stripe used for parity Total usable space = 400 gigs If you applied RAID 50 to my stack here, with 24 total drives, you would get TONS more space, but performance would drop by 50%, which would suck, because my system is right on the 60% mark for the throughput of the stack. Keith I guess from my perspective I'm down to a choice of one thing, RAID 10 or RAID 50. I figure that I will build an 8 drive system, and I could either go with a 4 drive RAID 10 configuration with 2 each, or striped RAID 5 array. It seems that I would need 3 striped drives in RAID 10 (6 total) to get the performance of a RAID 50 implementation, however that's only for one drive of course. The advantage goes down as you dedicate functions to separate sets of drives in RAID 10. There's no equation that can tell you off the cuff what's best because it depends on the application and how many sequential reads and writes you are doing at one time and if those can be split up somewhat evenly across different drive letters. [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ = -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
I don't know how the formatting was lost on this email, so here's another try so it makes more sense: RAID 0: non-redundant striping of drives RAID 1: drive mirroring (always an even number of drives) RAID 2: byte striping with moving parity (obsolete) RAID 3: byte striping with a fixed parity drive (obsolete) RAID 4: block striping with a fixed parity drive (obsolete) RAID 5: block striping with striped parity RAID 6: block striping with dual parity stripes (allows two drives to fail) RAID 1+0 or RAID 10: Mirrors of RAID 0 stripes (always an even number of drives) RAID 0+3 or RAID 35: Striped RAID 3 (obsolete) RAID 0+5 or RAID 50: Striped RAID 5 RAID 1+5 or RAID 51: Mirrors of RAID 5 strips The last one is a play on "area 51", but it's the most fail-safe of all of the RAID levels, used by military and extremely wealthy ignorants that believe data loss only comes from failed hardware. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Keith Anderson > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller > > > By the way, RAID 10 is not a mirrored set of Raid 5. Just > for the sake of a memory jog on my part, here are all of the > RAID levels: > > RAID 0: non-redundant striping of drives RAID 1: drive > mirroring (always an even number of drives) RAID 2: byte > striping with moving parity (obsolete) RAID 3: byte striping > with a fixed parity drive (obsolete) RAID 4: block striping [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Not to beat a dead horse, but... Am I mistaken about on RAID 5 array with 4 disks out performing one RAID 10 array with 4 disks? RAID 10 will do double RAID 0 plus a slight hit for mirroring. I though RAID 5 with 4 disks would out perform two striped drives despite the overhead. There is another issue though. I can only get 10 drive in a packed 3U chassis, so I could only do two RAID 10 arrays, but with RAID 50, drive partitions wouldn't matter if I'm not mistaken, 1 would be the same as 5 partitions, or close enough at least. With 8 disks in RAID 10, I could only separate the disk I/O for two logical drives. Matt Keith Anderson wrote: Nah, RAID 10's performance will always be twice as fast as RAID 50. Look at the writes required: WRITE to RAID 10: Write data to primary stripe Copy to backup stripe WRITE to RAID 50: Write data to primary stripe Update the parity on primary stripe Copy data to secondary stripe Update the parity on secondary stripe READ from RAID 10: Read data from primary stripe (half of the drives) READ from RAID 50: Read data from primary and secondary stripes (all of the drives) The advantage of RAID 50 over RAID 10 is better economy of drive space. Consider six drives, all 100 gigabytes: RAID 10: Three drives for storage Three drives for backup Total usuable space = 300 gigs RAID 50: Two drives on each stripe used for storage One drive on each stripe used for parity Total usable space = 400 gigs If you applied RAID 50 to my stack here, with 24 total drives, you would get TONS more space, but performance would drop by 50%, which would suck, because my system is right on the 60% mark for the throughput of the stack. Keith I guess from my perspective I'm down to a choice of one thing, RAID 10 or RAID 50. I figure that I will build an 8 drive system, and I could either go with a 4 drive RAID 10 configuration with 2 each, or striped RAID 5 array. It seems that I would need 3 striped drives in RAID 10 (6 total) to get the performance of a RAID 50 implementation, however that's only for one drive of course. The advantage goes down as you dedicate functions to separate sets of drives in RAID 10. There's no equation that can tell you off the cuff what's best because it depends on the application and how many sequential reads and writes you are doing at one time and if those can be split up somewhat evenly across different drive letters. [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Nah, RAID 10's performance will always be twice as fast as RAID 50. Look at the writes required: WRITE to RAID 10: Write data to primary stripe Copy to backup stripe WRITE to RAID 50: Write data to primary stripe Update the parity on primary stripe Copy data to secondary stripe Update the parity on secondary stripe READ from RAID 10: Read data from primary stripe (half of the drives) READ from RAID 50: Read data from primary and secondary stripes (all of the drives) The advantage of RAID 50 over RAID 10 is better economy of drive space. Consider six drives, all 100 gigabytes: RAID 10: Three drives for storage Three drives for backup Total usuable space = 300 gigs RAID 50: Two drives on each stripe used for storage One drive on each stripe used for parity Total usable space = 400 gigs If you applied RAID 50 to my stack here, with 24 total drives, you would get TONS more space, but performance would drop by 50%, which would suck, because my system is right on the 60% mark for the throughput of the stack. Keith > I guess from my perspective I'm down to a choice of one > thing, RAID 10 or RAID 50. I figure that I will build an 8 > drive system, and I could either go with a 4 drive RAID 10 > configuration with 2 each, or striped RAID 5 array. It seems > that I would need 3 striped drives in RAID 10 (6 > total) to get the performance of a RAID 50 implementation, > however that's only for one drive of course. The advantage > goes down as you dedicate functions to separate sets of > drives in RAID 10. There's no equation that can tell you off > the cuff what's best because it depends on the application > and how many sequential reads and writes you are doing at one > time and if those can be split up somewhat evenly across > different drive letters. [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
I'm not about to try to track down 250 people all over the place and try to get them to walk through changing the port in their mail clients. I'm a hosting provider, and supporting port 25 is pretty much a requirement. It's hard enough to get them to check that damn AUTH box on the server's tab that Microsoft hides from the setup wizard. Seriously. If I was hosting corporate mail servers for security conscious customers, I might suggest such a thing. Most of my hosting customer's IT staffs consist of the neighbor's 13 year old kid that knows enough to be dangerous. Heck, I can hardly mention the word "port" to some ISP tech support person with them suggesting that I'm being too technical. Seriously :) I do recall your old directions about tricking IMail not to bond to every IP, I just don't feel that I want to support this despite the fact that it is working for you as you have said. I think the router implementation is more eloquent and should present no issues, so I'm going to chase that one down until I hit a roadblock. Optimally, Ipswitch could give some consideration to the fact that they aren't always going to be the sole SMTP server on a box, nor will they need to be an SMTP server on every IP of the box regardless. Wouldn't that be dandy? Matt Sanford Whiteman wrote: ...ORF+MS SMTP which can't coexist on the same port as IMail, and I need IMail on port 25 for SMTP AUTH... While I still don't know why you're running an AUTH-only mailserver on port 25--rather than having your users use a port that is both less likely to be spammed directly and more likely to be permitted for egress by consumer ISPs--you can indeed run MS SMTP and IMail on the same box, same port, different IPs. Just follow my old directions for running IIS and IMail WM in the same config. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
By the way, RAID 10 is not a mirrored set of Raid 5. Just for the sake of a memory jog on my part, here are all of the RAID levels: RAID 0: non-redundant striping of drives RAID 1: drive mirroring (always an even number of drives) RAID 2: byte striping with moving parity (obsolete) RAID 3: byte striping with a fixed parity drive (obsolete) RAID 4: block striping with a fixed parity drive (obsolete) RAID 5: block striping with striped parity RAID 6: block striping with dual parity stripes (allows two drives to fail) RAID 1+0 or RAID 10: Mirrors of RAID 0 stripes (always an even number of drives) RAID 0+3 or RAID 35: Striped RAID 3 (obsolete) RAID 0+5 or RAID 50: Striped RAID 5 RAID 1+5 or RAID 51: Mirrors of RAID 5 strips The last one is a play on "area 51", but it's the most fail-safe of all of the RAID levels, used by military and extremely wealthy ignorants that believe data loss only comes from failed hardware. > I don't like RAID50, at least how it was configured in one of > the links you provided. I prefer to stay away from any RAID > done in software. RAID10, a mirrored set of RAID5 is nice, > but I've never gone for it. Sets of mirrors and RAID5 arrays > with an extra drive for a hot spare are my preference for > high end systems. [AUTOMATED NOTE: Your mail server [63.147.33.8] is missing a reverse DNS entry. All Internet hosts are required to have a reverse DNS entry. The missing reverse DNS entry will cause your mail to be treated as spam on some servers, such as AOL.] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
> ...ORF+MS SMTP which can't coexist on the same port as IMail, and I > need IMail on port 25 for SMTP AUTH... While I still don't know why you're running an AUTH-only mailserver on port 25--rather than having your users use a port that is both less likely to be spammed directly and more likely to be permitted for egress by consumer ISPs--you can indeed run MS SMTP and IMail on the same box, same port, different IPs. Just follow my old directions for running IIS and IMail WM in the same config. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Thanks Sandy, dully noted. I do host accounts, but I'm not pushing that side of my business. Currently it accounts for only about 1/5 of my E-mail volume, the rest is gatewayed and growing. I'm not sure though if I want to move it to the new box or not though. I need to do envelope rejection for invalid addresses on gatewayed domains (old discussion), and the work around is using ORF+MS SMTP which can't coexist on the same port as IMail, and I need IMail on port 25 for SMTP AUTH. The work around may be to configure MS SMTP on port 25 and a unique IP, and IMail on say port 2525 on a unique IP, and have the router do port forwarding on IMail's IP from 25 to 2525. That way both could co-exist on the same box. If I can get that to work, I'll move everything over. Web mail however is rarely used and won't present any challenges. I guess I could use a Syslog server to take that burden off of the server, and it would be easy to test by turning the logs off and on as far as what that would do. Declude of course won't syslog for the time being, but I'm buying myself a lot of time I figure. Placing Declude and Sniffer on it's own drive (if RAID 10) is something that I was overlooking and probably should be considered. So maybe 3 logical drives would seem immediately appropriate and maybe more if conditions warrant. Matt Sanford Whiteman wrote: Can anyone help rate the incremental performance boost of having the page file on a separate drive...I don't figure the server should be doing much with the page file if it has enough memory and is dedicated to E-mail processing. If you're using Web Messaging or Calendaring, virtual memory is _always_ used, regardless of the amount of physical RAM, and in those situations your system will benefit from multiple swapfiles on dedicated spindles. Without WM/WC, your assessment is correct. In addition, if providing WM/WC, performance will skyrocket if you mount \spool\web on dedicated spindles. From your message, however, I sense that you are not providing mailbox services of any kind. how about the log's? Well, think about it: every incoming connection is logged. If the log is on the same drive as the spool: immediate contention. Dedicating spindles to logging, or moving it off the box completely, is a near-mandate for a scaleable architecture. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Andrew (and Keith), First gen SATA was just repackaged ATA with SATA connectors. The conversion is likely what made the drives slower than their ATA counterparts. The new drives are native and entering the second generation. Also, controller cards like those made by Promise are entry level solutions and they're not at all the same type of architecture that you would find on a SCSI RAID card, but the newest offerings from 3ware, LSI and RAIDCore most definitely are the real deal, and Keith, they do allow for true hot swap and hot spares. You are right about the threat of cannibalism on SCSI capping the performance of SATA drives, but as referenced by that Tom's Hardware review of the Western Digital Raptor 10K, they have no SCSI business to protect. That drive massively outperforms the Seagate SATA drive tested and should benchmark with the best SCSI's around when you put it on a fully capable system. The WD drive should certainly do at least as well as a 15K Cheetah since those drives aren't known for performance. I guess from my perspective I'm down to a choice of one thing, RAID 10 or RAID 50. I figure that I will build an 8 drive system, and I could either go with a 4 drive RAID 10 configuration with 2 each, or striped RAID 5 array. It seems that I would need 3 striped drives in RAID 10 (6 total) to get the performance of a RAID 50 implementation, however that's only for one drive of course. The advantage goes down as you dedicate functions to separate sets of drives in RAID 10. There's no equation that can tell you off the cuff what's best because it depends on the application and how many sequential reads and writes you are doing at one time and if those can be split up somewhat evenly across different drive letters. Personally I believe that the processors will give out before the disks because I have a hefty setup where good E-mail with virus scanning and multiple filters is ravaging my dual P3 1 Ghz system. Well blacklisted spam causes hardly a blip, and that suggests that disk I/O isn't much of an issue currently. Of course I'm doing what I can to reduce the number of lines of code that I have in my custom filters and prodding for efficiency advances, some of which have already been indicated as expected features. So I'm thinking RAID 50 should be better than a 4 drive RAID 10 array across 2 logical drives, but it becomes questionable as to what has the advantage when you have 6 or more drives in RAID 10 across 2 or more logical drives. Matt Colbeck, Andrew wrote: (A little late to the party) No doubt, the initial rollout of SATA was a yawn, and SATA systems including RAID were regularly trounced by their ATA-133 equivalents. Like IDE, SATA had growing pains due to rival bodies pulling the standard in too many directions, but SATA and SATA2 are determined to cherry pick the performance features from SCSI, in particular: large caches, command queueing, interface bandwidth, predictive failure, and hot swap. I'm still concerned about the duty cycle that current SATA drives can handle. No drive technology is perfect, but the non-SCSI drives have never been known for reliability or duty cycle. Maybe that will change and maybe not. There are no "upstart" SATA drive manufacturers, all of them make SCSI drives too and won't want to cannibalize their market. Matt, you'll have to report back in a year... I don't like RAID50, at least how it was configured in one of the links you provided. I prefer to stay away from any RAID done in software. RAID10, a mirrored set of RAID5 is nice, but I've never gone for it. Sets of mirrors and RAID5 arrays with an extra drive for a hot spare are my preference for high end systems. Matt, you asked if anybody had comments on the performance gains to be had by moving the page file somewhere else... under NT4 I would have said it was mandatory, but with adequate RAM, W2K and W2K3 are not as aggressive with the page file, and I would suggest putting it on your OS drive, making it "big enough" and forgetting about it. Beyond that, I would listen to Sandy's previous comments about divvying up IMail and Declude on separate drive systems. At home I have a SATA Promise RocketRAID with excellent drives; I bought it when you still couldn't get a SATA controller in Canada (not too long ago) and had to work to find a dealer in the US that would ship to Canada. I'm happy with the speed, both for random reads and for beating the drives up with large file copies that are non-cacheable. At the office, I have a "near-line storage server" I built with a Promise ATA controller and a bunch of large fast IDE drives. It will be replaced this year with bigger drives and a jump to SATA. We use it for bulk storage that doesn't have to be the fastest, and the cost for a HP SCSI based kit just didn't make sense. Also at the office, we have two AS/400 servers with lots and lots of hard drives. IBM doesn't like to admit it, but they'r
Fw: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
Who was the registrar? - Original Message - From: "Todd Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:11 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain > I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from > aplus.net asking if I needed the domain web site hosted. I was a little > concerned because I don't want them calling my clients as soon as a new > domain is registered. > > I assume that they pulled the whois info from newly registered domain but I > don't know how they get it, or so quickly. > > > Todd --- Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group http://www.nexustechgroup.com/mailscan --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
Dave, I thought that might be the case so I called my rep an enom.com and she says the Do Not sell, or share info, although she did say that aplus.net is one of their resellers/customers. I chose enom.com based on recommendations from people here on the list but I have never had this happen before with other registars. Todd At 02:45 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, you wrote: Todd- Sounds like your registrar is selling their data. I've never had such a sales call using either Bulk Register or Network Solutions -Dave Doherty Skywaves, Inc. - Original Message - From: "Todd Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:11 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain > I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from > aplus.net asking if I needed the domain web site hosted. I was a little > concerned because I don't want them calling my clients as soon as a new > domain is registered. > > I assume that they pulled the whois info from newly registered domain but I > don't know how they get it, or so quickly. > > > Todd > > > > > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
> Can anyone help rate the incremental performance boost of having the > page file on a separate drive...I don't figure the server should be > doing much with the page file if it has enough memory and is > dedicated to E-mail processing. If you're using Web Messaging or Calendaring, virtual memory is _always_ used, regardless of the amount of physical RAM, and in those situations your system will benefit from multiple swapfiles on dedicated spindles. Without WM/WC, your assessment is correct. In addition, if providing WM/WC, performance will skyrocket if you mount \spool\web on dedicated spindles. From your message, however, I sense that you are not providing mailbox services of any kind. > how about the log's? Well, think about it: every incoming connection is logged. If the log is on the same drive as the spool: immediate contention. Dedicating spindles to logging, or moving it off the box completely, is a near-mandate for a scaleable architecture. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
In that case what registrar do you use Todd? Im with Tucows and never had such calls either. > -Original Message- > From: Dave Doherty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 25 March 2004 19:46 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain > > > Todd- > > Sounds like your registrar is selling their data. > > I've never had such a sales call using either Bulk Register > or Network Solutions > > -Dave Doherty > Skywaves, Inc. > > Email checked by UKsubnet anti-virus service To prevent email abuse & block spam contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44(0)8712360301 Web: www.uksubnet.net Fax: +44(0)8712360300 Powered by UKsubnet Internet Service Provider Business to Business Internet (ISP) --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
Todd- Sounds like your registrar is selling their data. I've never had such a sales call using either Bulk Register or Network Solutions -Dave Doherty Skywaves, Inc. - Original Message - From: "Todd Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:11 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain > I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from > aplus.net asking if I needed the domain web site hosted. I was a little > concerned because I don't want them calling my clients as soon as a new > domain is registered. > > I assume that they pulled the whois info from newly registered domain but I > don't know how they get it, or so quickly. > > > Todd > > > > > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
This is the same company that didn't pull that phishing scam from their server for 36 hours before Valentines day. They are also the same company that is refusing to pull a customer of theirs that attacks my server daily with a crawler that submits POST information to forms in rapid succession and across my entire server. They said it was harmless, I told them that it was clear they didn't care at all about what their customers did, they told me they took reports of abuse seriously...and then they failed to respond again to the problem despite repeated requests. I had to change the code for some of the forms on my site that lacked verification of a specific string of data because this crawler submitted 80 forms in a couple of minutes to one customer, and luckily the other forms were already protected. In the IP's surrounding this crawler, Aplus also has a very graphic porn site, a bulk mailer get rich quick scheme claiming 100,000 members one month after registration, and some guy selling burnt CD's of popular software titles. Aplus is a scourge, and soon enough they will likely achieve ServInt status in spam support. I would say blacklist them but unfortunately they have legit customers. I do though add a few points to their IP's as a protective measure, though right now they are more of a niche spam source. 66.226.64.0/19 Abacus America/A+Net Internet Services/aplus.net/abac.net (Slow or Completely Non-responsive to the Obvious) [66.226.64.0 - 66.226.95.255] 216.55.128.0/18 Abacus America/A+Net Internet Services/aplus.net/abac.net (Slow or Completely Non-responsive to the Obvious) [216.55.128.0 - 216.55.191.255] BTW, using registry data for sales calls is a clear TOS violation. Aplus is a domain reseller and you might be able to get them kicked if you try hard enough. Matt Todd Hunter wrote: I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from aplus.net asking if I needed the domain web site hosted. I was a little concerned because I don't want them calling my clients as soon as a new domain is registered. I assume that they pulled the whois info from newly registered domain but I don't know how they get it, or so quickly. Todd --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
Attached is the filter file. The problem is that it is *not* "room" -- it is "SUBJECT 30 IS rõõm". The Windows API has problems with 8-bit characters -- the latest beta of Declude JunkMail addresses this. With previous versions, Windows will return a match on any subject with "r" in it. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
Scott Attached is the filter file. Please tak a look. I can't even find the word in a global search Let me know what you think. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help >On that note Scott, any chance that in a future version the actual line of >text caught could be listed in the failure? Like: > >Message failed SUBJECTFILTER (332 room) That's something that we are thinking about adding. The only problem is that some people may not want the information to appear in the headers (for adult oriented E-mail, for example) -- although if the phrases are in the body and the E-mail isn't blocked, the recipient is going to see the phrases in the body anyway. >Or if not in the headers, how about in the log, maybe at only HIGH >level? I believe that it will appear in the log file at LOGLEVEL HIGH. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] # # # SUBJECT ISRe: cynthia has found a Vacation Property for you! # # SUBJECT 30 IS How I stay young SUBJECT 30 IS collagen biaxial SUBJECT 30 IS =?iso-8859-1?b? SUBJECT 30 IS =?iso SUBJECT 30 IS horny SUBJECT 30 IS horny swingers SUBJECT 30 IS V/1codin SUBJECT 30 IS V1agr@ SUBJECT 15 IS neighbors SUBJECT 30 IS Meds SUBJECT 30 IS Got All Meds. SUBJECT 30 IS V|cod|^n SUBJECT 30 IS v|@gra SUBJECT 30 IS |XANAX| SUBJECT 30 IS +Valium+ SUBJECT 30 IS S|o|ma SUBJECT 30 IS rõõm SUBJECT 30 IS t0ý SUBJECT 30 IS ýôûr SUBJECT 30 IS t0ýbõx! SUBJECT 30 IS V1AgR SUBJECT 30 IS Xan|a|x SUBJECT 30 IS [EMAIL PROTECTED]|um SUBJECT 30 IS +V+alium SUBJECT 30 IS [EMAIL PROTECTED] SUBJECT 30 IS XA+n+ax SUBJECT 20 IS Cheating wives online SUBJECT 30 IS Important notify about your e-mail account. SUBJECT 20 IS Monthly incomings summary SUBJECT 20 IS bingo SUBJECT 20 contains Refinance SUBJECT 20 IS Visit PlayboyPlus New Playmate Pics SUBJECT 10 IS ADD A LITTLE SUBJECT 10 IS "rape" SUBJECT 10 IS @ no charge SUBJECT 10 IS ADULT SUBJECT 10 IS .BIZ SUBJECT 10 IS .INFO SUBJECT 10 IS 100% SUBJECT -10 IS AAHomecare Special Alert: SUBJECT 10 IS act fast SUBJECT -10 IS Acurian News Update SUBJECT 10 IS adlt SUBJECT 20 IS Adult SUBJECT 20 IS Adu1t SUBJECT -10 IS Advocacy Weekly SUBJECT 10 IS Anal SUBJECT 10 IS Anxiety SUBJECT 10 IS any movie SUBJECT 10 IS Adipex SUBJECT 10 IS As Seen SUBJECT 10 IS as seen on SUBJECT 10 IS ASSET & BACKGROUND SUBJECT 10 IS Attn: Smokers SUBJECT 10 IS bitch SUBJECT 20 IS Blowjob SUBJECT 20 IS BlowJobs SUBJECT 10 IS breast SUBJECT 10 IS Brittney SUBJECT 10 IS casino SUBJECT 10 IS cedit check SUBJECT 10 IS Cell Phone SUBJECT 10 IS cheaper SUBJECT 10 IS Cheapest SUBJECT 10 IS Cholesterol SUBJECT 10 IS Cigarette SUBJECT 30 Contains C I HOST SUBJECT 10 IS claim your SUBJECT 10 IS cock SUBJECT 20 IS college degree SUBJECT 10 IS consolidate SUBJECT 10 IS consolidate your bills SUBJECT 10 IS cum SUBJECT 10 IS cumshots SUBJECT 10 IS cunt SUBJECT 10 IS Dare to win SUBJECT 10 IS D.E.G.R.E.E SUBJECT 10 IS d.g.r.e.e SUBJECT 10 IS descrambler SUBJECT 10 IS diabetes health SUBJECT 10 IS does size SUBJECT 10 IS don't get caught SUBJECT 10 IS dream date SUBJECT 20 IS enlarge SUBJECT 20 IS Enlarge SUBJECT 30 IS enlarge your member SUBJECT 10 IS enough proof SUBJECT 10 IS ERECTION SUBJECT 10 IS erotic SUBJECT 10 IS exclusive SUBJECT 10 IS fantastic rates SUBJECT 10 IS Fear SUBJECT 10 contains financial SUBJECT 10 IS Find Out SUBJECT 10 IS flowgo SUBJECT 10 IS Foreclosure SUBJECT 10 IS foreclosure SUBJECT 10 IS Foreign currency SUBJECT 10 IS free SUBJECT 10 IS F-R-E-E SUBJECT 10 IS free long distance SUBJECT 10 IS Free money SUBJECT 10 IS Freight Discounts SUBJECT 10 IS fuck SUBJECT 10 IS gay SUBJECT 10 IS get a deal SUBJECT 20 IS Get Cash back SUBJECT 10 IS get it right now SUBJECT 10 IS get paid SUBJECT 10 IS Get up to SUBJECT 10 IS giveaway SUBJECT 20 IS gasoline SUBJECT 10 IS Government grant SUBJECT 10 IS Government Money SUBJECT 10 IS Grant SUBJECT 10 IS Great Rate SUBJECT 10 IS Growth Hormone SUBJECT 10 contains guaranteed SUBJECT 10 IS hardcore SUB
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
Scott, Could not something like this be used. (1000) Body6 Containsspam phrase (1001) Body6 Containsspam phrase (1002) Body6 Containsspam phrase Where instead of the actual spam phrase in the log file the identifying phase code is recorded. This way each spam phrase could be uniquely numbered and tracked. Having the numbering in front the actual spam phrase would eliminate the need to try and separate numbering from something that may be included in an actual spam phrase. Stu At 01:26 PM 03/25/2004 -0500, you wrote: > >>On that note Scott, any chance that in a future version the actual line of >>text caught could be listed in the failure? Like: >> >>Message failed SUBJECTFILTER (332 room) > >That's something that we are thinking about adding. The only problem is >that some people may not want the information to appear in the headers (for >adult oriented E-mail, for example) -- although if the phrases are in the >body and the E-mail isn't blocked, the recipient is going to see the >phrases in the body anyway. > >>Or if not in the headers, how about in the log, maybe at only HIGH >>level? > >I believe that it will appear in the log file at LOGLEVEL HIGH. > >-Scott >--- >Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers >since 2000. >Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver >vulnerability detection. >Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. > >--- >[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. > > - CSOnline Technical Support Normal hours - Monday thru Saturday 8am - 12pm CSOnline Technical Support Numbers Seneca814-677-2447 Clarion 814-227-3638 Cochranton 814-425-1696 Parker724-399-1158 GremLan 814-337-7060 http://www.csonline.net http://www.cshowcase.com http://www.learncenter.com http://www.gremlan.org - --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
[Declude.JunkMail] OT: Sales call on new domain
I registered a domain on Tuesday and today I got a phone call today from aplus.net asking if I needed the domain web site hosted. I was a little concerned because I don't want them calling my clients as soon as a new domain is registered. I assume that they pulled the whois info from newly registered domain but I don't know how they get it, or so quickly. Todd --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Help
I had a problem with Sniffer earlier this week that turned out to be a corrupt update. There was a consistent error in the log for the time period when that botched update was in place. I've noted since then that several others have complained of similar issues with their sniffer updates, although not at the same time as mine was buggered. I assume that the situation is getting some madscientific attention because it appears there may be a little more than just random chance at work. When that particular failure occurs there is a particular fail-safe error code returned, and I created a new SNIFFER-FAILSAFE test that looks for that code and performs some bells and whistles to warn me of the problem so I can manually update. Although the "spam storm" symptoms were a pretty good indication. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Andrews Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Help I think that your sniffer update is corrupt. Do a manual update by executing the autoSNF.cmd file from a dos prompt and get a fresh download. In addition if you are trying the new beta version with a persistent instance, you might consider going back to the original version. The problem might be either or both but occurred for me last night and this is what it took to get sniffer back up. -Butch *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 3/25/2004 at 10:23 AM John Tolmachoff \(Lists\) wrote: >DNS problem? > >John Tolmachoff >Engineer/Consultant/Owner >eServices For You > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris >> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:58 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Help >> >> I just did a Windows NT update and now all mail is failing the >> Sniffer test...any ideas... >> >> Richard Farris >> Ethixs Online >> 1.270.247. Office >> 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:52 AM >> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help >> >> >> > >> > > >Subject: Re: Brochure >> > > >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test >(332) >> > > >> > >If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should >> > >have >the >> > >text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. >> > > >> > >This is whats on line 332 >> > >SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room >> > >> > I would try checking the lines just before and after that one, in >> > case >of >> a >> > line numbering discrepancy. >> > >> > >> > -Scott >> > --- >> > Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers >> > since 2000. >> > Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in >mailserver >> > vulnerability detection. >> > Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. >> > >> > --- >> > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >> (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >(http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >(http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
ATA and SATA are best suited for the lower end of the spectrum, while SCSI and FC are high-end. SATA still doesn't allow drives to communicate without going through the controller. SATA still doesn't allow disconnecting a drive mid-spin and replacing it without interruption of the system. Hot-swap carriages cheat the system by fooling the adapter into thinking a drive is there, but just busy, and you could never replace a dead one with a drive of differing capacity. Here's a real example of hot swap: if I wanted to add several terabytes to my SCSI/160 RAID10 stack here, I can do so, replacing one drive at a time with larger drives. I don't have to shut down the array, and the attached servers don't even feel a slowdown in performance. With all ATA/SATA systems, you must shut down and rebuild the array. On-the-fly scalability is critical in the high-end market. No, I'm really not selling ATA or SATA short, but most ATA/133 drives (the hardware itself) were never designed to drive throughput anywhere near 133, and most SATA drives will never drive throughput at anywhere near 150. Your example of 450 MHz with 8 drives connected is a good example-- even using ATA/100, shouldn't an eight channel RAID 5 be able to handle a sustained throughput of 700? Well, no, because it's ATA. I'm sure SATA will hit 300 and 600 just like processors went from 4.77 MHz to 4.77 GHz. But when all of us were dazzled by machines that topped 100 MHz, the big machines were already playing at over 4 GHz. Now we are in awe when our desktops hit 4 GHz, and the big machines are dealing in teraflops. To propose a SATA drive for one of these big machines would be just as ridiculous as proposing a fiber channel RAID10 stack for a workstation. 99.999% of the processor time would be used in waiting for the drives. As desktop systems get faster and faster, so will the standards. I personally believe the biggest advantage with SATA is its support for extremely large drives. Maxtor is coming out with a Terabye drive in the next few years, and it will not work with ATA. As for standards in general, it's always important to remember that standards have one purpose: "sell lots of hardware". This is accomplished by everyone agreeing on how to interconnect. Don't be fooled into thinking that they create standards for any other reason, otherwise everything would be connected with FireWire, and we'd all be using Apple servers. :) The manufactures supporting SATA will never allow it to compete against their high-margin products, SCSI and FC, so purposefully it will never be quite as fast, quite as robust, or quite as capable. You will always be able to find premium (i.e. $15-$25 per gig) SCSI and FC products that are better than anything made for ATA or SATA. It's all about who is willing to spend the most money. Profit margins in the ATA and SATA market are extremely tight, while SCSI and FC are very generous. As for choosing a RAID type, it always depends on the usual argument of budget vs. performance requirements vs. risk tolerance. RAID5 is great if you are okay with the risk that if two drives fail at the same time, it's dead. With very big arrays, your risk of dual failure is a lot higher, especially if you bought all of the drives at the same time and from the same place. RAID50 is better than RAID5. I'm still of the opinion that RAID10 is the best for reliability and performance if you have the budget, especially if they are SCSI so the mirrors are updated across the cable and not through the adapter. As for threads and whatnot, that also depends on your controller, its cache size, the machine it's attached to, the speed of the drives, and a lot of things. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller > > You are selling serial ATA short. Also, I'm not sure if you > are mistaking ATA with serial ATA in your reply. > > It does turn out that there is some logical speculation that > SCSI drive manufacturers are treating SATA as their economy > server/workstation class, however Western Digital's 10K drive > has no in house SCSI alternative. Tom's did a comparison of > that to the Seagate here: > > Smart Hard Drives: Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 and Western > Digital WD740 Raptor > http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20040123/index.html > > I am definitely going the Western Digital route based on what > I saw there. > > Regarding SATA RAID cards, there are two things happening > here. First, 3wave and LSI are both working on full featured > versions for SATA, and they are starting to support native > command queuing which apparently can speed performance by > 1/3, and instead of bridging ATA to SATA on the hard drives, > these are now also being made natively now as well. Here's a > press release concerning LSI's upcoming
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Help
I think that your sniffer update is corrupt. Do a manual update by executing the autoSNF.cmd file from a dos prompt and get a fresh download. In addition if you are trying the new beta version with a persistent instance, you might consider going back to the original version. The problem might be either or both but occurred for me last night and this is what it took to get sniffer back up. -Butch *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 3/25/2004 at 10:23 AM John Tolmachoff \(Lists\) wrote: >DNS problem? > >John Tolmachoff >Engineer/Consultant/Owner >eServices For You > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris >> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:58 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Help >> >> I just did a Windows NT update and now all mail is failing the Sniffer >> test...any ideas... >> >> Richard Farris >> Ethixs Online >> 1.270.247. Office >> 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:52 AM >> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help >> >> >> > >> > > >Subject: Re: Brochure >> > > >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test >(332) >> > > >> > >If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have >the >> > >text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. >> > > >> > >This is whats on line 332 >> > >SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room >> > >> > I would try checking the lines just before and after that one, in case >of >> a >> > line numbering discrepancy. >> > >> > >> > -Scott >> > --- >> > Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers >> > since 2000. >> > Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in >mailserver >> > vulnerability detection. >> > Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. >> > >> > --- >> > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >> (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >(http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >(http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
(A little late to the party) No doubt, the initial rollout of SATA was a yawn, and SATA systems including RAID were regularly trounced by their ATA-133 equivalents. Like IDE, SATA had growing pains due to rival bodies pulling the standard in too many directions, but SATA and SATA2 are determined to cherry pick the performance features from SCSI, in particular: large caches, command queueing, interface bandwidth, predictive failure, and hot swap. I'm still concerned about the duty cycle that current SATA drives can handle. No drive technology is perfect, but the non-SCSI drives have never been known for reliability or duty cycle. Maybe that will change and maybe not. There are no "upstart" SATA drive manufacturers, all of them make SCSI drives too and won't want to cannibalize their market. Matt, you'll have to report back in a year... I don't like RAID50, at least how it was configured in one of the links you provided. I prefer to stay away from any RAID done in software. RAID10, a mirrored set of RAID5 is nice, but I've never gone for it. Sets of mirrors and RAID5 arrays with an extra drive for a hot spare are my preference for high end systems. Matt, you asked if anybody had comments on the performance gains to be had by moving the page file somewhere else... under NT4 I would have said it was mandatory, but with adequate RAM, W2K and W2K3 are not as aggressive with the page file, and I would suggest putting it on your OS drive, making it "big enough" and forgetting about it. Beyond that, I would listen to Sandy's previous comments about divvying up IMail and Declude on separate drive systems. At home I have a SATA Promise RocketRAID with excellent drives; I bought it when you still couldn't get a SATA controller in Canada (not too long ago) and had to work to find a dealer in the US that would ship to Canada. I'm happy with the speed, both for random reads and for beating the drives up with large file copies that are non-cacheable. At the office, I have a "near-line storage server" I built with a Promise ATA controller and a bunch of large fast IDE drives. It will be replaced this year with bigger drives and a jump to SATA. We use it for bulk storage that doesn't have to be the fastest, and the cost for a HP SCSI based kit just didn't make sense. Also at the office, we have two AS/400 servers with lots and lots of hard drives. IBM doesn't like to admit it, but they're really SCSI drives under the hood. They certainly do go bad, but we never know it. The big black box calls IBM with the predictive failure, and we get a call from our local technician who wants to know when it would be convenient for us for him to come in and replace it with a hot spare. Andrew 8) -Original Message- From: Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller You are selling serial ATA short. Also, I'm not sure if you are mistaking ATA with serial ATA in your reply. It does turn out that there is some logical speculation that SCSI drive manufacturers are treating SATA as their economy server/workstation class, however Western Digital's 10K drive has no in house SCSI alternative. Tom's did a comparison of that to the Seagate here: Smart Hard Drives: Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 and Western Digital WD740 Raptor http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20040123/index.html I am definitely going the Western Digital route based on what I saw there. Regarding SATA RAID cards, there are two things happening here. First, 3wave and LSI are both working on full featured versions for SATA, and they are starting to support native command queuing which apparently can speed performance by 1/3, and instead of bridging ATA to SATA on the hard drives, these are now also being made natively now as well. Here's a press release concerning LSI's upcoming offering: LSI Logic launches industry's first PCI-X enabled hardware based MegaRAID SATA 300-8X solution http://www.lsilogic.com/news/product_news/2004_02_17a.html I don't think you can find any fault with that. Concerning the bus bottleneck, the PCI-X upgrade will take care of that on a capable system. I did some more research though and found the following review of a new approach to RAID from some former Adaptec employees (now owned by Broadcom). It's a company known as RAIDcore and their performance is at least on par with Adaptec SCSI in the benchmarks on a RAID 0 installation according to Tom's Hardware RAIDCore Unleashes SATA to Take Out SCSI http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20031114/index.html Better yet, the card has 8 independent channels and you can span across controllers among other things. I plan on buying one of these and doing RAID 50 which will give me redundancy plus speed without having to dedicate a disk to a specific drive. This is generally cost prohibitive with SCSI. RAIDCore claims performance of 450 MB/s sustained reads
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
On that note Scott, any chance that in a future version the actual line of text caught could be listed in the failure? Like: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER (332 room) That's something that we are thinking about adding. The only problem is that some people may not want the information to appear in the headers (for adult oriented E-mail, for example) -- although if the phrases are in the body and the E-mail isn't blocked, the recipient is going to see the phrases in the body anyway. Or if not in the headers, how about in the log, maybe at only HIGH level? I believe that it will appear in the log file at LOGLEVEL HIGH. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Help
DNS problem? John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:58 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Help > > I just did a Windows NT update and now all mail is failing the Sniffer > test...any ideas... > > Richard Farris > Ethixs Online > 1.270.247. Office > 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support > > - Original Message - > From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:52 AM > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: Brochure > > > >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) > > > > > >If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the > > >text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. > > > > > >This is whats on line 332 > > >SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room > > > > I would try checking the lines just before and after that one, in case of > a > > line numbering discrepancy. > > > > > > -Scott > > --- > > Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers > > since 2000. > > Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver > > vulnerability detection. > > Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. > > > > --- > > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
> > >Subject: Re: Brochure > > >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test > > >(332) > > > >If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have > >the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. > > > >This is whats on line 332 > >SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room > > I would try checking the lines just before and after that one, in case > of a line numbering discrepancy. On that note Scott, any chance that in a future version the actual line of text caught could be listed in the failure? Like: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER (332 room) Or if not in the headers, how about in the log, maybe at only HIGH level? Sure would help when tuning filters since I might add a half dozen lines to a filter between when the message failed and I look at the SPAM folder. Thanks for Declude whether you do this or not. :) Jeff --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Filter File processing
A) A small number of larger filer files vs a lot of smaller files B) Doesn't make any significant difference if you use the SKIPIFWEIGHT option at the beginning even though it would still have to open the file to check the SKIPIFWEIGHT setting. C) A small number of larger files ordered in the config file ordered from lightest processing most likely to hit to heaviest processing less likely to hit D) Alot of smaller files ordered in the config file from ordered from lightest processing most likely to hit to heaviest processing less likely to hit I would think C or D would be the best option. I would agree. Specifically, you would want BODY (or ANYWHERE) filters to only be used after everything else was handled. Those are the most CPU intensive filters. The last question is what, in number of lines, would be a large filter file. 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000 That depends on what your concerns are about the large files. As far as Declude is concerned, a single large file of 10,000 lines would be (very slightly) more efficient than say 10 files with 1,000 lines each. But the difference should be almost negligible. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
[Declude.JunkMail] Help
I just did a Windows NT update and now all mail is failing the Sniffer test...any ideas... Richard Farris Ethixs Online 1.270.247. Office 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:52 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help > > > >Subject: Re: Brochure > > >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) > > > >If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the > >text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. > > > >This is whats on line 332 > >SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room > > I would try checking the lines just before and after that one, in case of a > line numbering discrepancy. > > > -Scott > --- > Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers > since 2000. > Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver > vulnerability detection. > Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
[Declude.JunkMail] Filter File processing
In an effort to try and reduce the processing needed for checking mail. With the new features in Declude to end or skip processing within a filterfile does it seem better to have. A) A small number of larger filer files vs a lot of smaller files B) Doesn't make any significant difference if you use the SKIPIFWEIGHT option at the beginning even though it would still have to open the file to check the SKIPIFWEIGHT setting. C) A small number of larger files ordered in the config file ordered from lightest processing most likely to hit to heaviest processing less likely to hit D) Alot of smaller files ordered in the config file from ordered from lightest processing most likely to hit to heaviest processing less likely to hit I would think C or D would be the best option. The last question is what, in number of lines, would be a large filter file. 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000 Stu - CSOnline Technical Support Normal hours - Monday thru Saturday 8am - 12pm CSOnline Technical Support Numbers Seneca814-677-2447 Clarion 814-227-3638 Cochranton 814-425-1696 Parker724-399-1158 GremLan 814-337-7060 http://www.csonline.net http://www.cshowcase.com http://www.learncenter.com http://www.gremlan.org - --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
Kevin, I'm trying to be constructive when I say this, so don't take it the wrong way. You probably need to seriously rethink your implementation if you are not up to date on the RBL's (DNSBL's) and doing things like adding 30 points for subjects that contain the characters "room". You indicated that you missed some replies yesterday, and I would be worried about what might have caused that to happen. If you are doing a lot of word filtering, you should start by looking there, and maybe turn the scoring for these things off until you get a better handle on what is going on. Matt Kevin Shimwell wrote: Scott Subject: Re: Brochure X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. This is whats on line 332 SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help Last week I was so tired of have to look at spam and up date filters. Im pretty feed up with all this. ( :-) Im venting. Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)? Im sending all failed mail to a junk email and I found the attached header and want to know why it would fail the subject test when the word "Re: Brochure" is not even in the txt file? Global file # SUBJECTFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\Subjectfilter.txt x 2 0 The "#" at the beginning of the line means that it is a comment, so that test is disabled. I assume that was done after the E-mail was received? Subject: Re: Brochure X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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. -- = MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. http://www.mailpure.com/software/ =
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
You are selling serial ATA short. Also, I'm not sure if you are mistaking ATA with serial ATA in your reply. It does turn out that there is some logical speculation that SCSI drive manufacturers are treating SATA as their economy server/workstation class, however Western Digital's 10K drive has no in house SCSI alternative. Tom's did a comparison of that to the Seagate here: Smart Hard Drives: Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 and Western Digital WD740 Raptor http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20040123/index.html I am definitely going the Western Digital route based on what I saw there. Regarding SATA RAID cards, there are two things happening here. First, 3wave and LSI are both working on full featured versions for SATA, and they are starting to support native command queuing which apparently can speed performance by 1/3, and instead of bridging ATA to SATA on the hard drives, these are now also being made natively now as well. Here's a press release concerning LSI's upcoming offering: LSI Logic launches industry's first PCI-X enabled hardware based MegaRAID SATA 300-8X solution http://www.lsilogic.com/news/product_news/2004_02_17a.html I don't think you can find any fault with that. Concerning the bus bottleneck, the PCI-X upgrade will take care of that on a capable system. I did some more research though and found the following review of a new approach to RAID from some former Adaptec employees (now owned by Broadcom). It's a company known as RAIDcore and their performance is at least on par with Adaptec SCSI in the benchmarks on a RAID 0 installation according to Tom's Hardware RAIDCore Unleashes SATA to Take Out SCSI http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20031114/index.html Better yet, the card has 8 independent channels and you can span across controllers among other things. I plan on buying one of these and doing RAID 50 which will give me redundancy plus speed without having to dedicate a disk to a specific drive. This is generally cost prohibitive with SCSI. RAIDCore claims performance of 450 MB/s sustained reads, and 230 MB/s sustained writes using an 8 drive RAID 50 setup. The total cost for the drives plus the card would run me $1,200 (no hot swap, though that is available, even Intel is coming out with hot swap SATA drive carriages this quarter). A comparable setup with SCSI RAID 50 would run 3 times the price and might not out perform. http://www.raidcore.net/RC4000DataSheet_2.pdf The only issue that I see with this is the company is young and this is their first product (though they are backed by Broadcom now), but it looks real hot and you can get an 8 channel card for under $400. If you are wondering about the effect of RAID 50 over just plain RAID 5, here's a nice start: http://cdfcaf.fnal.gov/doc/cdfnote_5962/node15.html This shows that while performance decreases with RAID 5 as the number of threads increases, RAID 50 maintains it's throughput until around 40-60 read threads before it drops off. Naturally this would be somewhat unique to each card, but it makes plenty of sense. I believe that SCSI is just a physical interface/transport layer protocol if I'm not mistaken, and all that makes SCSI special is what's connected to it at either end. SATA is more capable, and SATA II which does 150 MB/s will be replaced by 300 MB/s versions, 600 MB/s versions, and on, but for now, there is no need for even 100 MB/s on one channel in this configuration so that doesn't matter. It's foolish to think that SATA won't take over the market as soon as they start connecting the good stuff to SATA wires, and it looks like they are starting to do that now. Matt Keith Anderson wrote: My SCSI RAID10 rack has a dedicated "channel" (if you are referring to the physical cable connecting the drive to the adapter card) for each drive in the rack. They don't share cables in high-end systems, either, especially with SCSI/640. Long before you run into bottlenecks at the drive cables, you will run into a bottleneck at the interface between your adapter card and the motherboard. The only advantage to multiple channels comes from a very efficient write-back cache right on the RAID card. Tom is comparing drives that you can buy at a place like CompUSA, isn't he? Budget ATA vs. budget SCSI (The Cheetah). Aside from the hot-swap advantage and a bit more throughput, SCSI just wasn't meant for the CompUSA market. It was intended and best suited for high-end applications. SCSI is also quickly being replaced by fiber channel in the very high-end systems, because fiber channel handles 2Gig throughput. You don't pay a dollar-per-gigabyte to get 2 gigs of throughput. And YES, the drives are much different. These drives are much bigger, much faster, many more platters and heads, and very reliable, and VERY expensive. They go through weeks of intensive testing before they are released for use. If you look at the Seagate models in the low-end consumer marke
[Declude.JunkMail] Fake routing headers confirmed
Ever wonder if anything before the hop that delivered the message to your server was legit? Check out this text file attachment, where a spammer's "search and replace" didn't quite work. The first instance of the yahoo section worked, and an extra section leaves his replacement variables... not replaced. The "snip" lines replace the targeted email address, plus two tracking URLs in the body. Andrew 8) spam.mim Description: Binary data
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
>Subject: Re: Brochure >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. This is whats on line 332 SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room I would try checking the lines just before and after that one, in case of a line numbering discrepancy. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Nicely written. I use the LSI Logic Megaraid (Formally AMI) Elite SCSI Boards. I configure it as a Raid1 set for the C: and another Raid1 set for the D: This allows me to temporarily Fail a drive when I am performing update/upgrade. If the update/upgrade goes bad I have complete snapshot of the drives prior to the work. Backup and running in minutes. Just my thoughts. - Original Message - From: "Keith Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:07 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller My SCSI RAID10 rack has a dedicated "channel" (if you are referring to the physical cable connecting the drive to the adapter card) for each drive in the rack. They don't share cables in high-end systems, either, especially with SCSI/640. Long before you run into bottlenecks at the drive cables, you will run into a bottleneck at the interface between your adapter card and the motherboard. The only advantage to multiple channels comes from a very efficient write-back cache right on the RAID card. Tom is comparing drives that you can buy at a place like CompUSA, isn't he? Budget ATA vs. budget SCSI (The Cheetah). Aside from the hot-swap advantage and a bit more throughput, SCSI just wasn't meant for the CompUSA market. It was intended and best suited for high-end applications. SCSI is also quickly being replaced by fiber channel in the very high-end systems, because fiber channel handles 2Gig throughput. You don't pay a dollar-per-gigabyte to get 2 gigs of throughput. And YES, the drives are much different. These drives are much bigger, much faster, many more platters and heads, and very reliable, and VERY expensive. They go through weeks of intensive testing before they are released for use. If you look at the Seagate models in the low-end consumer market and compare ATA and SCSI in the same lines, you'll find that the hardware behind the PCB is identical. I won't disagree that they overprice the SCSI version of that drive, but there really is a lot more "smarts" in a SCSI drive than ATA. A SCSI device isn't just hard drives, but entire arrays can be interfaced with SCSI, and other device types like scanners, printers, etc. are supported. The main advantage to SCSI is that all SCSI devices must be able to function completely independent of any other device. For example, the SCSI command structure allows you to copy data directly from one drive to another without data going through the adapter. A SCSI device can be disconnected and reconnected at will from its host, and as long as the host wasn't in need of something at that moment, nothing is interrupted. Error handling is just as complex, with the drive itself able to mark bad sectors and relocate data to spare sectors, all without causing any transaction delays. In contrast, ATA is watered down to be simple, cheap and mass reproducable. Very dependent on a host to tell it what to do at any given moment, and if you disconnect it, it's lost from the system until reboot (and possibly damaged). When errors occur on an ATA drive, it has very little smarts to handle it. A failing ATA will drag a system to its knees. Yes, SCSI is an old standard, but many standards are just as old and they are still the best choice today. Look at Ethernet! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller > > That's the company that I was told about before. I think you > might be selling serial ATA short though. > > First, these cards have a separate bus for each drive, so a 4 > port serial ATA RAID card can handle much more than any > single drive can push. No issue there. > > Secondly, I've been reading reviews for over a year now on > Tom's hardware that show IDE drives out performing 15K > Cheetahs. This wasn't always the case but it appears that > there has been a lot of effort in the IDE realm and very > little in the SCSI realm. The SCSI protocol is at least a > decade old as well and I see no reason why you should just > simply keep doubling the bus with that technology when you > can pump more data over a simple firewire or USB cable (along > with power). > > The real question though is how well are these drives made in > comparison to the SCSI ones. SCSI is of course just the > interface and has no effect on the reliability of the drive. > It used to be that they just simply engineered the SCSI > drives better, but I don't know that this is entirely the > case now, or at least if there enough of a difference for it > to really matter. The current SATA drives are generally > suggested to be better than IDE, but I wouldn't expect for > one to be as reliable as a drive that costs 4 times as much > if not more. The incremental boost to reliability may also > be moot depending on the application. I plan on having two >
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] DNS
Here is what I do: Install and run DNS service on the Imail server in CACHE only mode. Put in multiple forwarders. Configure Imail to use 127.0.0.1 for DNS. You will never have that problem. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harry Vanderzand > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] DNS > > Whenever I have to bring my primary dns server down a lot of spam gets > through. It appears that declude is only using one DNS server. Is there a > way for it to use my secondary DNS when the primary is down? > > thanks > > Harry Vanderzand > inTown Internet & Computer Services > 11 Belmont Ave. W. > Kitchener, ON > N2M 1L2 > 519-741-1222 > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
Scott >Subject: Re: Brochure >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. This is whats on line 332 SUBJECT 30 CONTAINS room -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help >Last week I was so tired of have to look at spam and up date filters. Im >pretty feed up with all this. ( :-) Im venting. Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)? >Im sending all failed mail to a junk email and I found the attached header >and want to know why it would fail the subject test when the word "Re: >Brochure" >is not even in the txt file? > >Global file ># SUBJECTFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\Subjectfilter.txt x 2 0 The "#" at the beginning of the line means that it is a comment, so that test is disabled. I assume that was done after the E-mail was received? >Subject: Re: Brochure >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
>Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)? No I have not - where do I get it? http://www.declude.com/junkmail/manual.htm -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
>Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)? No I have not - where do I get it? >The "#" at the beginning of the line means that it is a comment, so that test is disabled. I assume that was done after the E-mail was received? I disabled this after I saw all the good mail being trapped. >If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. OK I will look kevin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help >Last week I was so tired of have to look at spam and up date filters. Im >pretty feed up with all this. ( :-) Im venting. Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)? >Im sending all failed mail to a junk email and I found the attached header >and want to know why it would fail the subject test when the word "Re: >Brochure" >is not even in the txt file? > >Global file ># SUBJECTFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\Subjectfilter.txt x 2 0 The "#" at the beginning of the line means that it is a comment, so that test is disabled. I assume that was done after the E-mail was received? >Subject: Re: Brochure >X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
Last week I was so tired of have to look at spam and up date filters. Im pretty feed up with all this. ( :-) Im venting. Have you recently updated your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file (are there lines beginning with AHBL, CBL, SBL, and SORBS- in there)? Im sending all failed mail to a junk email and I found the attached header and want to know why it would fail the subject test when the word "Re: Brochure" is not even in the txt file? Global file # SUBJECTFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\Subjectfilter.txt x 2 0 The "#" at the beginning of the line means that it is a comment, so that test is disabled. I assume that was done after the E-mail was received? Subject: Re: Brochure X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332) If you look at line 332 in the subjectfilter.txt file, it should have the text that caused the SUBJECTFILTER test to be triggered. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Log Question
Below is a line from my declude log file. I was able to get the message ID from my syslog and then went to my declude log file and found this. Could someone explain to me why this was caught? It was not caught: 03/25/2004 08:44:52 Qe2520a28017a22f2 Tests failed [weight=0]: IPNOTINMX=IGNORE NOLEGITCONTENT=IGNORE CATCHALLMAILS=IGNORE This shows that only the IGNORE action was used. Unless there were other "Tests failed" log file entries, the De2520a28017a22f2.SMD and Qe2520a28017a22f2.SMD files should not be in your \IMail\spool\spam directory. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
[Declude.JunkMail] something is up help
Last week I was so tired of have to look at spam and up date filters. Im pretty feed up with all this. ( :-) Im venting. I have a subject filter that doesn't work Im sending all failed mail to a junk email and I found the attached header and want to know why it would fail the subject test when the word "Re: Brochure"is not even in the txt file?Global file# SUBJECTFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\Subjectfilter.txt x 2 0$default$GIBBERISH WARNANTI-GIBBERISH WARN# IPLINKED warnBADHEADERS warnMAILFROM deletePERCENT warnREVDNS warnROUTING WARNSPAMHEADERS warn# MYFILTER alertSubjectFilter warn# BodyFilter warn KILLFROM delete# MONKEYFORMMAIL delete SNIFFER warn Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com [205.188.139.137] by scooby.linkbrokers.com (SMTPD32-8.05) id A5C531F0128; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:07:49 -0500Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r1.2.) id g.d8.69f44c2 (4238); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:05:30 -0500 (EST)From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:05:30 ESTSubject: Re: BrochureTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1080227130"X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5006X-RBL-Warning: SUBJECTFILTER: Message failed SUBJECTFILTER test (332)X-RBL-Warning: NOABUSE: Not supporting [EMAIL PROTECTED]X-RBL-Warning: NOPOSTMASTER: Not supporting [EMAIL PROTECTED]X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [205.188.139.137]X-Declude-Spoolname: Df5c5031f0128028e.SMDX-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Link Brokers JunkMail Software for spam.X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SUBJECTFILTER, NOABUSE, NOPOSTMASTER, IPNOTINMX, WEIGHT21-34 [32]X-Country-Chain: X-Note: This E-mail was sent from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137]).X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Status: UX-UIDL: 378878866 Kevin ShimwellLink Brokers Group, LLC ( Support )1600 Hwy 17 SouthNorth Myrtle Beach, SC 29582Phone: 843-663-1004Fax: 843-663-1007Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]24/7 Support http://www.linkbrokers.com/support_ticket.cfmSupport M-F 1-888-546-5631
[Declude.JunkMail] Log Question
Good morning - Below is a line from my declude log file. I was able to get the message ID from my syslog and then went to my declude log file and found this. Could someone explain to me why this was caught? I don't hold for weight=0. The other tests are IGNORE so they should not have stopped this message. 2004 08:44:52 Qe2520a28017a22f2 L1 Message OK 03/25/2004 08:44:52 Qe2520a28017a22f2 Tests failed [weight=0]: IPNOTINMX=IGNORE NOLEGITCONTENT=IGNORE CATCHALLMAILS=IGNORE Any help is appreciated. Samantha --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
My SCSI RAID10 rack has a dedicated "channel" (if you are referring to the physical cable connecting the drive to the adapter card) for each drive in the rack. They don't share cables in high-end systems, either, especially with SCSI/640. Long before you run into bottlenecks at the drive cables, you will run into a bottleneck at the interface between your adapter card and the motherboard. The only advantage to multiple channels comes from a very efficient write-back cache right on the RAID card. Tom is comparing drives that you can buy at a place like CompUSA, isn't he? Budget ATA vs. budget SCSI (The Cheetah). Aside from the hot-swap advantage and a bit more throughput, SCSI just wasn't meant for the CompUSA market. It was intended and best suited for high-end applications. SCSI is also quickly being replaced by fiber channel in the very high-end systems, because fiber channel handles 2Gig throughput. You don't pay a dollar-per-gigabyte to get 2 gigs of throughput. And YES, the drives are much different. These drives are much bigger, much faster, many more platters and heads, and very reliable, and VERY expensive. They go through weeks of intensive testing before they are released for use. If you look at the Seagate models in the low-end consumer market and compare ATA and SCSI in the same lines, you'll find that the hardware behind the PCB is identical. I won't disagree that they overprice the SCSI version of that drive, but there really is a lot more "smarts" in a SCSI drive than ATA. A SCSI device isn't just hard drives, but entire arrays can be interfaced with SCSI, and other device types like scanners, printers, etc. are supported. The main advantage to SCSI is that all SCSI devices must be able to function completely independent of any other device. For example, the SCSI command structure allows you to copy data directly from one drive to another without data going through the adapter. A SCSI device can be disconnected and reconnected at will from its host, and as long as the host wasn't in need of something at that moment, nothing is interrupted. Error handling is just as complex, with the drive itself able to mark bad sectors and relocate data to spare sectors, all without causing any transaction delays. In contrast, ATA is watered down to be simple, cheap and mass reproducable. Very dependent on a host to tell it what to do at any given moment, and if you disconnect it, it's lost from the system until reboot (and possibly damaged). When errors occur on an ATA drive, it has very little smarts to handle it. A failing ATA will drag a system to its knees. Yes, SCSI is an old standard, but many standards are just as old and they are still the best choice today. Look at Ethernet! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller > > That's the company that I was told about before. I think you > might be selling serial ATA short though. > > First, these cards have a separate bus for each drive, so a 4 > port serial ATA RAID card can handle much more than any > single drive can push. No issue there. > > Secondly, I've been reading reviews for over a year now on > Tom's hardware that show IDE drives out performing 15K > Cheetahs. This wasn't always the case but it appears that > there has been a lot of effort in the IDE realm and very > little in the SCSI realm. The SCSI protocol is at least a > decade old as well and I see no reason why you should just > simply keep doubling the bus with that technology when you > can pump more data over a simple firewire or USB cable (along > with power). > > The real question though is how well are these drives made in > comparison to the SCSI ones. SCSI is of course just the > interface and has no effect on the reliability of the drive. > It used to be that they just simply engineered the SCSI > drives better, but I don't know that this is entirely the > case now, or at least if there enough of a difference for it > to really matter. The current SATA drives are generally > suggested to be better than IDE, but I wouldn't expect for > one to be as reliable as a drive that costs 4 times as much > if not more. The incremental boost to reliability may also > be moot depending on the application. I plan on having two > different gateway machines that only do scanning. Redundancy > will be achieved with multiple machines each capable of > handling 100% of the total mail volume. If one fails, big > whoop, replace the bad drive and you're back in business. > > Cost becomes an issue for a non-corporate entity, and I can > afford to dedicate more drives to more distinct tasks with > SATA, and therefore I should be able to achieve better performance. > > The only variable for me that needs consideration is whether > or not the current crop o
AW: [Declude.JunkMail] BODY FILTER Question
hi, i don't it will work. there is nothing like BODYFILTER within a filter. i think you should try: BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt with ANYWHERE 0 CONTAINS sex ANYWHERE 0 CONTAINS sexy ANYWHERE 0 CONTAINS S badword that would search for those words in the whole messages (including the header) or BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt with BODY 0 CONTAINS sex BODY 0 CONTAINS sexy BODY 0 CONTAINS badword that would search only in the body gruessemarkus guhl***lds nrwdez. 235tel.: 0211 9449 2578fax.: 0211 9449 8344mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]*** -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-Von: Kevin Shimwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 25. März 2004 14:14An: Declude Junk MailBetreff: [Declude.JunkMail] BODY FILTER Question On this same subject I want a filter for body text Such as BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt x 0 And I want it to find exact words Will this filter work? BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt with BODYFILTER 0 IS sex BODYFILTER 0 IS sexy BODYFILTER 0 IS badword Kevin ShimwellLink Brokers Group, LLC ( Support )1600 Hwy 17 SouthNorth Myrtle Beach, SC 29582Phone: 843-663-1004Fax: 843-663-1007Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]24/7 Support http://www.linkbrokers.com/support_ticket.cfmSupport M-F 1-888-546-5631
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BODY FILTER Question
NO I did not my mail server was wacked out. It must have been on crack. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BODY FILTER Question >On this same subject > >I want a filter for body text > >Such as BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt x 0 > >And I want it to find exact words Hmmm... you asked this question yesterday, and got several responses -- did you not get them? -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Link Brokers Group, Inc Virus Protection] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BODY FILTER Question
On this same subject I want a filter for body text Such as BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt x 0 And I want it to find exact words Hmmm... you asked this question yesterday, and got several responses -- did you not get them? -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DNS
Whenever I have to bring my primary dns server down a lot of spam gets through. Correct. Declude JunkMail relies on your DNS servers to detect spam. It appears that declude is only using one DNS server. That, too, is correct. Given the architecture of IMail, using the backup can be problematic. Note that it has recently been recommended to only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings. Is there a way for it to use my secondary DNS when the primary is down? If you have planned downtime, you can add a DNS line in the \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file. For example, if your backup DNS server is at 192.0.2.53, you can add a line "DNS 192.0.2.53" to the \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file, and Declude JunkMail will use that DNS server instead. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
[Declude.JunkMail] BODY FILTER Question
On this same subject I want a filter for body text Such as BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt x 0 And I want it to find exact words Will this filter work? BODYFILTER filter E:\Imail\Declude\Filters\bodyfilter.txt with BODYFILTER 0 IS sex BODYFILTER 0 IS sexy BODYFILTER 0 IS badword Kevin ShimwellLink Brokers Group, LLC ( Support )1600 Hwy 17 SouthNorth Myrtle Beach, SC 29582Phone: 843-663-1004Fax: 843-663-1007Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]24/7 Support http://www.linkbrokers.com/support_ticket.cfmSupport M-F 1-888-546-5631
[Declude.JunkMail] DNS
Whenever I have to bring my primary dns server down a lot of spam gets through. It appears that declude is only using one DNS server. Is there a way for it to use my secondary DNS when the primary is down? thanks Harry Vanderzand inTown Internet & Computer Services 11 Belmont Ave. W. Kitchener, ON N2M 1L2 519-741-1222 --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Countries List
"Use this link to get the 2 letter abbrevations for the countries you want to add to your own filter: http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm . Some folks add the whole list while I've only added the ones I see as a problem." Just in case it helps... Attached is the file we use. Adjust it as you see fit. [Hope people don't mind a small attachment] Regards, Kami COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAD COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAE COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAF COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAG COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAI COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAL COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAM COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAN COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAO COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAQ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAR COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAS COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAT COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAU COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAW COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSAZ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBA COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBB COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBD COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBE COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBF COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBG COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBH COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBI COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBJ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBM COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBN COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBO COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBR COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBS COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBT COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBV COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBW COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBY COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSBZ COUNTRIES 0 CONTAINSCA COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCC COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCF COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCG COUNTRIES 10 CONTAINSCH COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCI COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCK COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCL COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCM COUNTRIES 10 CONTAINSCN COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCO COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCR COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCS COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCU COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCV COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCX COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCY COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSCZ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSDE COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSDJ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSDK COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSDM COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSDO COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSDZ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSEC COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSEE COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSEG COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSEH COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSER COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSES COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSET COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSFI COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSFJ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSFK COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSFM COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSFO COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSFR COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSFX COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGA COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGB COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGD COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGE COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGF COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGH COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGI COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGL COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGM COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGN COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGP COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGQ COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGR COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGS COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGT COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGU COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGW COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSGY COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSHK COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSHM COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSHN COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSHR COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSHT COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSHU COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSID COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSIE COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSIL COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSIN COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSIO COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSIQ COUNTRIES -10 CONTAINSIR COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSIS COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSIT COUNTRIES 1 CONTAINSJM COUNTRIES 1 CONT
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller
Yuck. My Adaptec 29160 is taking a crap. Come to find out, it is an OEM resold by a distributor and purchased to build the server it is in by my old employer, who I got the server from as part of the deal when I started my business. What do you think of the LSI 20160? Hardware RAID will not be used in this server unless I could find a way to cram another 18GB drive into it to make 2 pairs of RAID1. (Already has 3 SCSIs for mail boxes and spool, 2 EIDE for OS Page and logs, and a floppy and CD ROM. Tower box.) John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Whiteman > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:50 PM > To: Kevin Bilbee > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Raid Controller > > > I have the oppertunity to add some spindles to our mail server and > > want to know what people are using and reccomend I have been looking > > at LSI and my boss wants me to look at Adaptec. > > LSI is _loved_ around these parts. We dropped Adaptec and started > using the LSI 320-2X recently. Cool secondary effect: on our Dell > servers, the built-in instrumentation picks up the LSI, since it's the > same vendor they use as an OEM for the latest PERCs. > > --Sandy > > > > Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist > Broadleaf Systems, a division of > Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! > http://www.mailmage.com/download/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/Release/ > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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 was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.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.
