Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Buffer overflow in Ipswitch products
The proof-of-concepts which have been tested on multiple versions also list a not vulnerable category if other versions have been tested. I get the feeling that Ipswitch has washed its hands of the previous version that is more than 90 days old. They take a passive approach to security; setting back and waiting on 3rd parties to report problems. So it's not like they've actually dusted off the 8.22 version code to look at it. Does the ':' in an E-mail address have any special significance to the ICS collaboration suite? A lack of bounds checking during the parsing of long strings contained within the characters '@' and ':' leads to a stack overflow vulnerability. - Original Message - But don't you think some white hat would've tested 8.x in the process of checking the proof-of-concept? Not necessarily, but it would be traditional. --- 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: Disk pattern 0xDF in files - Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug!
Hi, I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support yesterday afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854) We are aware the issue you are experiencing. A corresponding bugcheck request is currently open, and the develop team is working on this issue. However, the hotfix for this issue is not ready. 0xDF is the data pattern that NTFS returns when it has problem to decompress the file (eg. the compression fragments are corrupted and can't be decompressed). Based on my research, the actual raw data on the disk is not changed, it shows as 0xDF because the system cannot decompress the file and display the data correctly. So the corrupt is not permanent. Further more, the issue only occurs on files which containing Hexadecimal codes. Apparently, Microsoft decided not to warn people about this problem - no comment has been added to KF920958 warning people which system configurations will cause data loss (who cares if it's not permanent if you can't use your data for a few months). Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 03:21 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files - KB920958 may be bad! Answers below. Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Heimir: I've been running a number of tests, am in contact with a third Microsoft customer and some pattern seems to emerge. I also have a lead to a questionable Hotfix, but I'm trying to qualify that first. Can we first compare your systems to see what's the same (and may be relevant) and what's different: A) Disks are defined as dynamic Dynamic B) Disks are software mirrored using Win2k Disk Administration no C) The folders with the problem files have the compression attribute set! yes. D) Did the problem occur at some point after KB920958 was installed? yes, I think so. E) Do the corrupted files have a content of all 0xDF (it looks a little like an uppercase B, the German special s, or like the Beta character) Yes F) Does it appear as if only NEW files are effected? no, old files as well. BUT I think defrag ran this weekend and that would have moved some files - if that matters. G) Does it appear as if only files are effected that are close to a multiple of 4K? Yes. I broke the mirrors on my effected two servers and ran ChkDsk /F. On one server, ONE disk ChkDsk reported errors (including the files that I knew were corrupted) - virtually all of them were image file types. I reran the ChkDsk and it did NOT find errors. I then tried the second disk of the mirror and it found no errors at all. I then restablished the mirrors and my client continues to have problems with new files. On the second server, I broke the mirror, again, the ChcDsk /F repaired a long list of errors. I did NOT reestablish the mirror and did not put that disk back in service. Please contribute to the thread in the Microsoft newsgroup: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/newsgroups/dgbrowser/en-us/ defaul t.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win2000.file_systemmid=d826afe9-2ab1-4b2f- ae11-c c27702f574a Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:29 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files Follow up: During the day I did run chkdks with no switch to check the hard drive, it reported errors and could not continue. Last night I did run chkdsk /f on the partition and it did not find any errors this time. i did process a few thumbnails and they worked fine at 12:30am today. At 8:00am they still worked but now 11:27 they dont. This was old photos that I did reprocess again. A couple of new photos that was uploaded yesterday and processed yesterday is still working fine. I can't make much sense out of this. Not sure what to next. I dont think its hardware and I am certain its not our software. So that leaves OS. Heimir Eidskrem wrote: we are having the exact problem on one of our servers. We create small thumbnail pictures about 4k in size. They work fine at first but later they are corrupted. Windows 2000 server. I have no clue what it could be at this time. It started around this weekend I think. Please keep me posted if you find something. H. Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi, I have two older servers (but not same models or same purchase years) running Windows 2000 with mirrored disks (software Raid-1). Two days ago a customer noticed that they uploaded files to their FTP space, and initially they see the files on the browser - but a while later the data is corrupted. I
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Buffer overflow in Ipswitch products
The SMTP engine is largely unchanged since 8.0 was released. 2006 deals primarily with webmail thus far, and these other services have only been tweaked and not rewritten. I assume that all of 8.x is vulnerable regardless of the source of the information on the list which was not disputed. I think that earlier versions however are certainly an open question. Safari support is in 2001.1 for the first time. They indicated that for the most part, only rich text editing of E-mail of missing, and that this is what was going to be available to the expert group soon. Having something that is at least minimally functional for Safari users was a huge shortcoming of 2006 thus far and most ISP's and hosting providers who knew about this held off because of it. Now they are being forced to upgrade to a first time partially functional platform. Normally I would consider it minimally acceptable for a company to patch any software for vulnerabilities like this for a year regardless of issues surrounding the latest release. Of course the more expensive and critical the software is, the longer they should support patching vulnerabilities, and in this case since they only now have an upgrade path from 8.22, they should definitely provide it. Matt Sanford Whiteman wrote: On the IMail list they indicated that IMail 8.x is also affected and possibly older versions as well. A non-Ipswitch poster said that an anonymous tech indicated so. We all know that if that was a first-level tech... their word is not exactly gold. True, the IMail product manager chimed in to say that no patches of any kind are offered for older versions, but did not own up to this vulnerability, AFAICS. Not encouraging either way. It is notable that the various third-party advisories (most of them reprints, to be sure) specify: Ipswitch Collaboration 2006 Suite Premium Edition Ipswitch Collaboration 2006 Suite Standard Edition Ipswitch IMail 2006 Ipswitch IMail Plus 2006 Ipswitch IMail Secure 2006 If script kiddie code were in the wild, an upgrade-or-get-owned vulnerability in the thousands of IMail 6.x, 7.x, and 8.x MXs still in use is a MAJOR problem! But don't you think some white hat would've tested 8.x in the process of checking the proof-of-concept? Not necessarily, but it would be traditional. The biggest issue here is that the first version with rudimentary Safari support in webmail happens to be the latest with the patch...? Hmm, I kinda saw the opposite, in that Kevin said of Safari support today (9/11), "This will be available in an expert user program in sept/oct and to the general public in the next release." It would, of course, behoove him to lightly imply (somewhere else?) that (a) the patched 2006.1 supports Safari and (b) 8.22's SMTPD is subject to the new vulnerability, but I don't believe either of these are true. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/ Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/ http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/release/ --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. ---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. Tounsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], andtype "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be foundat http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files - Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug!
Why admit it unless your hand is forced? Since when did most corporations own up to their faults simply to be good netizens? Then there's always the anti-corporate train of thought that believes it is possible that they don't mind such issues existing on old software since it can cause upgrades to occur (see Ipswitch too). Of course that may be borderline schizo thinking. Matt Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi, I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support yesterday afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854) "We are aware the issue you are experiencing. A corresponding bugcheck request is currently open, and the develop team is working on this issue. However, the hotfix for this issue is not ready. 0xDF is the data pattern that NTFS returns when it has problem to decompress the file (eg. the compression fragments are corrupted and can't be decompressed). Based on my research, the actual raw data on the disk is not changed, it shows as 0xDF because the system cannot decompress the file and display the data correctly. So the corrupt is not permanent. Further more, the issue only occurs on files which containing Hexadecimal codes." Apparently, Microsoft decided not to warn people about this problem - no comment has been added to KF920958 warning people which system configurations will cause data loss (who cares if it's not permanent if you can't use your data for a few months). Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 03:21 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files - KB920958 may be bad! Answers below. Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Heimir: I've been running a number of tests, am in contact with a third Microsoft customer and some pattern seems to emerge. I also have a "lead" to a questionable Hotfix, but I'm trying to qualify that first. Can we first compare your systems to see what's the same (and may be relevant) and what's different: A) Disks are defined as "dynamic" Dynamic B) Disks are software mirrored using Win2k Disk Administration no C) The folders with the "problem" files have the "compression" attribute set! yes. D) Did the problem occur at some point after KB920958 was installed? yes, I think so. E) Do the corrupted files have a content of all 0xDF (it looks a little like an uppercase "B", the German special "s", or like the Beta character) Yes F) Does it appear as if only NEW files are effected? no, old files as well. BUT I think defrag ran this weekend and that would have moved some files - if that matters. G) Does it appear as if only files are effected that are close to a multiple of 4K? Yes. I broke the mirrors on my effected two servers and ran ChkDsk /F. On one server, ONE disk ChkDsk reported errors (including the files that I knew were corrupted) - virtually all of them were image file types. I reran the ChkDsk and it did NOT find errors. I then tried the second disk of the mirror and it found no errors at all. I then restablished the mirrors and my client continues to have problems with new files. On the second server, I broke the mirror, again, the ChcDsk /F repaired a long list of errors. I did NOT reestablish the mirror and did not put that disk back in service. Please contribute to the thread in the Microsoft newsgroup: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/newsgroups/dgbrowser/en-us/ defaul t.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win2000.file_systemmid=d826afe9-2ab1-4b2f- ae11-c c27702f574a Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:29 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files Follow up: During the day I did run chkdks with no switch to check the hard drive, it reported errors and could not continue. Last night I did run chkdsk /f on the partition and it did not find any errors this time. i did process a few thumbnails and they worked fine at 12:30am today. At 8:00am they still worked but now 11:27 they dont. This was old photos that I did reprocess again. A couple of new photos that was uploaded yesterday and processed yesterday is still working fine. I can't make much sense out of this. Not sure what to next. I dont think its hardware and I am certain its not our software. So that leaves OS. Heimir Eidskrem wrote: we are having the exact problem on one of our servers. We create small thumbnail pictures about 4k in size. They work fine at first but later they are
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files - Microsoft confirms KB920958 bug!
Andy, Not sure if you saw it but this issue was brought up on Slashdot yesterday, so it got some exposure. Heimir Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi, I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support yesterday afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854) We are aware the issue you are experiencing. A corresponding bugcheck request is currently open, and the develop team is working on this issue. However, the hotfix for this issue is not ready. 0xDF is the data pattern that NTFS returns when it has problem to decompress the file (eg. the compression fragments are corrupted and can't be decompressed). Based on my research, the actual raw data on the disk is not changed, it shows as 0xDF because the system cannot decompress the file and display the data correctly. So the corrupt is not permanent. Further more, the issue only occurs on files which containing Hexadecimal codes. Apparently, Microsoft decided not to warn people about this problem - no comment has been added to KF920958 warning people which system configurations will cause data loss (who cares if it's not permanent if you can't use your data for a few months). Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 03:21 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files - KB920958 may be bad! Answers below. Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Heimir: I've been running a number of tests, am in contact with a third Microsoft customer and some pattern seems to emerge. I also have a lead to a questionable Hotfix, but I'm trying to qualify that first. Can we first compare your systems to see what's the same (and may be relevant) and what's different: A) Disks are defined as dynamic Dynamic B) Disks are software mirrored using Win2k Disk Administration no C) The folders with the problem files have the compression attribute set! yes. D) Did the problem occur at some point after KB920958 was installed? yes, I think so. E) Do the corrupted files have a content of all 0xDF (it looks a little like an uppercase B, the German special s, or like the Beta character) Yes F) Does it appear as if only NEW files are effected? no, old files as well. BUT I think defrag ran this weekend and that would have moved some files - if that matters. G) Does it appear as if only files are effected that are close to a multiple of 4K? Yes. I broke the mirrors on my effected two servers and ran ChkDsk /F. On one server, ONE disk ChkDsk reported errors (including the files that I knew were corrupted) - virtually all of them were image file types. I reran the ChkDsk and it did NOT find errors. I then tried the second disk of the mirror and it found no errors at all. I then restablished the mirrors and my client continues to have problems with new files. On the second server, I broke the mirror, again, the ChcDsk /F repaired a long list of errors. I did NOT reestablish the mirror and did not put that disk back in service. Please contribute to the thread in the Microsoft newsgroup: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/newsgroups/dgbrowser/en-us/ defaul t.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.win2000.file_systemmid=d826afe9-2ab1-4b2f- ae11-c c27702f574a Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:29 PM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Disk pattern 0xDF in files Follow up: During the day I did run chkdks with no switch to check the hard drive, it reported errors and could not continue. Last night I did run chkdsk /f on the partition and it did not find any errors this time. i did process a few thumbnails and they worked fine at 12:30am today. At 8:00am they still worked but now 11:27 they dont. This was old photos that I did reprocess again. A couple of new photos that was uploaded yesterday and processed yesterday is still working fine. I can't make much sense out of this. Not sure what to next. I dont think its hardware and I am certain its not our software. So that leaves OS. Heimir Eidskrem wrote: we are having the exact problem on one of our servers. We create small thumbnail pictures about 4k in size. They work fine at first but later they are corrupted. Windows 2000 server. I have no clue what it could be at this time. It started around this weekend I think. Please keep me posted if you find something. H. Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi, I have two older servers (but not same models or same purchase years) running Windows 2000 with mirrored disks (software Raid-1). Two days ago a customer
[Declude.JunkMail] Global config for 3.11
Title: Global config for 3.11 Can I trouble someone to send me their standard global config file that came with junkmail 3.11? I just want to see which tests have been added/changed from the config I'm running (2.06) I will be doing the upgrade next week as tomorrow is my last day for the week and I'm hesitant to upgrade, then leave for the rest of the week. Thanks Sharyn ---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.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Buffer overflow in Ipswitch products
The SMTP engine is largely unchanged since 8.0 was released. Geez, man, that is completely untrue. If that's your premise, sorry, that debate is on your planet, I'm not going there Safari support is in 2001.1 for the first time. Then it's pretty strange how there's not a single post that I can find that suggests so on _any_ official level. Rather, only the opposite, such as Kevin's we are now working on IMail 2006.1.1 (safari support, web messaging performance, instant messaging and a few other areas) (7/28) and of course the quote I posted yesterday in which he mentions that they are _not_ supporting Safari at present, but _will_ in 2006.1.1. I think you might be confused because on 7/28 Kevin casually says he's tested (presumably speaking of 2006.1, and not speaking of an organized unit test) with Safari _2.0.3_; he claims only some dropdowns that don't work (not that people like to roll out software with non-working Bcc: and Cc:, but whatever). He's speaking of 2.03 specifically, which only runs on OS X Tiger. OS X Panther users are forced to stay in the 1.x stream. If you are a hosting service supporting Safari, you are supporting both. It's like not supporting 5.x browsers on PC. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/ Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/ http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/release/ --- 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] Buffer overflow in Ipswitch products
My reading of Kevin Gills' message on 9/11 was that most everything but rich text editing now works, and that rich text support will be in the next release. Naturally I haven't tested it, and it definitely needs testing before committing Mac users to this interface. See below: Hi All, Yes, we have added Safari support (all but the rich text editor) in the last sprint. This will be available in an expert user program in sept/oct and to the general public in the next release. Bye for now, kg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Grant Griffith - IMail List Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 09:00 To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Imail 2006.1 Webmail - Macintosh/safari? Nope, that is supposedly the next release Grant -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike N Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:48 AM To: Imail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com Subject: [IMail Forum] Imail 2006.1 Webmail - Macintosh/safari? Does the latest 2006 work with the Macintosh/Safari browser? We now have the maibox size indicator, so we may be able to proceed with the upgrade to 2006.1. Thanks, Sanford Whiteman wrote: The SMTP engine is largely unchanged since 8.0 was released. Geez, man, that is completely untrue. If that's your premise, sorry, that debate is on your planet, I'm not going there Safari support is in 2001.1 for the first time. Then it's pretty strange how there's not a single post that I can find that suggests so on _any_ official level. Rather, only the opposite, such as Kevin's "we are now working on IMail 2006.1.1 (safari support, web messaging performance, instant messaging and a few other areas)" (7/28) and of course the quote I posted yesterday in which he mentions that they are _not_ supporting Safari at present, but _will_ in 2006.1.1. I think you might be confused because on 7/28 Kevin casually says he's tested (presumably speaking of 2006.1, and not speaking of an organized unit test) with Safari _2.0.3_; he claims only some dropdowns that don't work (not that people like to roll out software with non-working Bcc: and Cc:, but whatever). He's speaking of 2.03 specifically, which only runs on OS X Tiger. OS X Panther users are forced to stay in the 1.x stream. If you are a hosting service supporting Safari, you are supporting both. It's like not supporting 5.x browsers on PC. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/ Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/ http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/release/ --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. ---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. Tounsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], andtype "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be foundat http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Buffer overflow in Ipswitch products
My reading of Kevin Gills' message on 9/11 was that most everything but rich text editing now works, and that rich text support will be in the next release. Not my reading... Yes, we have added Safari support (all but the rich text editor) in the last sprint. This will be available in an expert user program in sept/oct and to the general public in the next release. He is referring to the last sprint toward 2006.1.1's release, i.e. the last sprint in current development before 2006.1.1 goes public beta. Darin's reading of it agrees with mine, at least. It is not the most straightforward post from Kevin. If 2006.1 were officially alleged to have Safari support, I would expect that it would be in the release notes, but nope: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/imail/guide/2006/2006_1/IMail_RelNotes.htm --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/ Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/ http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/release/ --- 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] Buffer overflow in Ipswitch products
Confirming my take on the situation, Kevin just posted this to IMail_Forum: Thanks for your feedback and yes, Safari is a bit cantankerous. Firefox/Mac has been okay but not Safari. It turns out we just fixed (in the last few business days) the last known issue with Safari. We were going to demo at the last IMail Sprint last week but webex and Safari do not get along! This will be released in 2006.2. We will have it up and running on webdemo.ipswitch.com in the coming weeks and you can contact me offline to gain access and use. By the way, what version of Safari are you using? General Availability is still being set for the 2006.2 release. --Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SpamAssassin plugs into Declude! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release/ Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases! http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/download/release/ http://www.imprimia.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/release/ --- 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.
