Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Sweet Matt, thanks! On Apr 5, 2006, at 13:56, Matt wrote: Dan, The code is sort of bitmasked in a way (using hex values). So these codes actually reflect combinations. There are literally hundreds of combinations. Matt Dan wrote: I've been able to assemble these valid codes http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c020040c http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420f http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=6000410f http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=8004000e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=801e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=802c http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=840a http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=8c20 http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c040120e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c004020e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c010100e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c8000246 http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c8000247 and these invalid ones, which are reported to be from multiple criteria http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=a400010b http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=a010010f Can you confirm if when multiple criteria are triggered, say 3, if one of the 3 is displayed or if it is a composite code that represents all 3? Thanks, Dan On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:55, David Barker wrote: Hi Dan, I am not sure that there is a list of codes. I think the codes are generated and then decoded by the headers page. It is a tool that Scott Perry wrote so I am not that familiar with it I would have to look into it further. David B www.declude.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 8:40 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADERX-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message- Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Dan, The code is sort of bitmasked in a way (using hex values). So these codes actually reflect combinations. There are literally hundreds of combinations. Matt Dan wrote: I've been able to assemble these valid codes http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c020040c http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420f http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=6000410f http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=8004000e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=801e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=802c http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=840a http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=8c20 http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c040120e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c004020e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c010100e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c8000246 http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c8000247 and these invalid ones, which are reported to be from multiple criteria http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=a400010b http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=a010010f Can you confirm if when multiple criteria are triggered, say 3, if one of the 3 is displayed or if it is a composite code that represents all 3? Thanks, Dan On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:55, David Barker wrote: Hi Dan, I am not sure that there is a list of codes. I think the codes are generated and then decoded by the headers page. It is a tool that Scott Perry wrote so I am not that familiar with it I would have to look into it further. David B www.declude.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 8:40 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADERX-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message- Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assu
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
I've been able to assemble these valid codes http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c020040c http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420f http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=6000410f http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=8004000e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=801e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=802c http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=840a http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=8c20 http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c040120e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c004020e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c010100e http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c8000246 http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c8000247 and these invalid ones, which are reported to be from multiple criteria http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=a400010b http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=a010010f Can you confirm if when multiple criteria are triggered, say 3, if one of the 3 is displayed or if it is a composite code that represents all 3? Thanks, Dan On Apr 5, 2006, at 5:55, David Barker wrote: Hi Dan, I am not sure that there is a list of codes. I think the codes are generated and then decoded by the headers page. It is a tool that Scott Perry wrote so I am not that familiar with it I would have to look into it further. David B www.declude.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 8:40 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message- Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Hi Dan, I am not sure that there is a list of codes. I think the codes are generated and then decoded by the headers page. It is a tool that Scott Perry wrote so I am not that familiar with it I would have to look into it further. David B www.declude.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 8:40 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: > You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers > section: > > XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% > > This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which > will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- > mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. > > http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php > > David B > www.declude.com > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion > > > Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have > spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I > still have to learn. > > I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by > thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail > client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I > know what to do now. > > At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: > > > Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between > these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server > as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came > directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that > passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like > most every E-mail > server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. > Declude > detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the > message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one > when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this > message. The > second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. > That > header was inserted by Charter's server. > > There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should > add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add > "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID > test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same > issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it > checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you > will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of > the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE > though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook > client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, > especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam > (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). > > The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a > setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist > all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example > that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST > AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. > > Matt > > > > > > Orin Wells wrote: > > > Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling > with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the > sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages > coming from > this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at > other > messages sent by others using the same build of this application > sometimes > they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there > anyway that > this sender can "fix" this problem? > > Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" > > X-
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Actually, those variable codes are listed at the bottom of the online manual. Dean On 4/4/06, Scott Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I doubt you'll get a list. I imagine this is proprietary information forDeclude.- Original Message - From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com>Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion> David,>> Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are> there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? >> Thanks,> Dan>>>> On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote:>>> You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers>> section: >>>> XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE%>>>> This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which>> will>> explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to >> fail>> the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail.>>>> http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php>>>> David B >> www.declude.com>> >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Orin Wells>> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM>> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com>> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion>>>>>> Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent >> on>> both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have>> to>> learn.>>>> I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking >> you>> had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In>> re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do>> now.>>>> At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: >>>>>> Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between>> these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as>> it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly >> from>> the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through>> another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail>> server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude >> detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id:>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the>> message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when >> it>> was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message.>> The>> second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That>> header was inserted by Charter's server. >>>> There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should>> add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add>> "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS>> ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I>> use>> this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more>> false>> positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use >> this>> alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and>> BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you>> aren't>> using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly >> connecting>> Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test,>> especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam>> (XBL/CBL,>> SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). >>>> The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a>> setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist>> all>> authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you >> provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH>> disables>> most tests in JunkMail.>>>> Matt>>>>>>>>>> >> Orin Wells wrote:>>>> Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling>> with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the>> sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming >> from>> this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other>> messages sent by others using the same build of this application>> sometimes>> they DO have the Message-ID. What is happen
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
I doubt you'll get a list. I imagine this is proprietary information for Declude. - Original Message - From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzhon3oAG4QKXrR/aQjfBQ4RaA6gFQvMdQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
I doubt yo - Original Message - From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzhon3oAG4QKXrR/aQjfBQ4RaA6gFQvMdQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PRO
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
I doubty - Original Message - From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzhon3oAG4QKXrR/aQjfBQ4RaA6gFQvMdQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PRO
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
David, Pardon the delayed reply, but I'm curious, how many possible codes are there and is there a comprehensive inventory or list anywhere? Thanks, Dan On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:56, David Barker wrote: You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E- mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzho
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
You can add the following to your global.cfg file under your headers section: XINHEADER X-Declude-Code: %HEADERCODE% This will produce a code and you can check it on this web page which will explain to you what problem(s) exist with headers that cause E-mails to fail the BADHEADERS or SPAMHEADERS tests in Declude JunkMail. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php David B www.declude.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:05 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzhon3oAG4QKXrR/aQjfBQ4RaA6gFQvMdQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-RBL-Warning
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Thanks Matt. I don't spend as much time as some of you folks have spent on both iMail and Declude so there is more than a little bit I still have to learn. I misread your first response and got off on the wrong track by thinking you had said the message-id header WAS inserted by the mail client. In re-reading you clearly said it was done by iMail. OK, I know what to do now. At 10:47 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzhon3oAG4QKXrR/aQjfBQ4RaA6gFQvMdQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam [421e]. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [216.254.57.135] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMHEADERS X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 375162615 Here is a message from another chap using exactly the same build of MS Office Outlook - no problem. X-Persona: Received: from mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.216] by awasco.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A0DE7401B8; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:18:54 -0700 Received: from mxip10.cluster1.charter.net (mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.140]) by mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6QF6YR0023700 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:06:34 -0400 Received: from 44ba00138.kfalls.or.charter.com (HELO SCOTTSGATEWAY) (68.186.0.138) by mxip10.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2004 11:06:32 -0400 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Ironport-AV: i="3.83,88,108900"; d="scan'208?jpg'208,145?dat'208,145,59"; a="140519816:sNHT19421620" Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Scott Lochard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Orin Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:06:30 -0700 Organization: LifeorDeathLeadership MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0060_01C472E7.76D7EA10"
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Outlook does not add a Message-ID header. The difference between these two messages is that the first is one that is using your server as it's SMTP server and you are scanning the message as it came directly from the E-mail client, while the second example is one that passed through another server before coming to yours. IMail, like most every E-mail server, adds a Message-ID header when one isn't already there. Declude detects Message-ID headers inserted by your own IMail box (Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in the first example), and treats the message as if it didn't have one since it didn't actually have one when it was received, and this is what triggers SPAMHEADERS for this message. The second example had a Message-ID header before it hit your server. That header was inserted by Charter's server. There is a lesser known solution to this that you definitely should add if you are going to stay on IMail 7.07. You can add "LOOSENSPAMHEADERS ON" to your Global.cfg to disable the Message-ID test in SPAMHEADERS. I use this even though I don't have the same issue because I get a lot more false positives on SPAMHEADERS when it checks for the Message-ID. If you use this alternative switch, you will still get other hits such as CMDSPACE and BADHEADERS on some of the same E-mail clients. It appears that you aren't using CMDSPACE though because that test would hit every directly connecting Outlook client unless it was whitelisted. CMDSPACE is a great test, especially in combination with other tests that target zombie spam (XBL/CBL, SpamCop, open relay tests, and to some extent Sniffer). The best solution is to upgrade to IMail 8.x or higher and add a setting to your Global.cfg for "WHITELIST AUTH". This will whitelist all authenticated E-mail, which I assume included the first example that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzhon3oAG4QKXrR/aQjfBQ4RaA6gFQvMdQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam [421e]. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [216.254.57.135] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMHEADERS X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 375162615 Here is a message from another chap using exactly the same build of MS Office Outlook - no problem. X-Persona: Received: from mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.216] by awasco.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A0DE7401B8; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:18:54 -0700 Received: from mxip10.cluster1.charter.net (mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.140]) by mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6QF6YR0023700 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:06:34 -0400 Received: from 44ba00138.kfalls.or.charter.com (HELO SCOTTSGATEWAY) (68.186.0.138) by mxip10.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2004 11:06:32 -0400 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Ironport-AV: i="3.83,88,108900"; d="scan'208?jpg'208,145?dat'208,145,59"; a="140519816:sNHT19421620" Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Scott Lochard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Orin Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:06:30 -0700 Organization: LifeorDeathLeadership MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0060_01C472E7.76D7EA10" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: E4E4AE15AD8AD544BD6C22CBC36DF311E4922700 Thread-Index: AcRzIeZrtdYsyWeMTb6K4XIb1GNwxA== X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [209.225.28.216] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Fail
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question - more confusion
Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling with the SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time the sender is using Microsoft Office Outlook. It appears messages coming from this sender do not have the Message-ID header. But when I look at other messages sent by others using the same build of this application sometimes they DO have the Message-ID. What is happening here? Is there anyway that this sender can "fix" this problem? Here is a header set from the chap who is "failing" X-Persona: Received: from steve2 [216.254.57.135] by consejo-wa.org with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A9111EEB010C; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:37:05 -0800 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Steve Chupik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Orin Wells'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: e-mail Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0800 Organization: Consejo Counseling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_03BE_01C63886.9616AF40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcYzhon3oAG4QKXrR/aQjfBQ4RaA6gFQvMdQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam [421e]. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [216.254.57.135] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMHEADERS X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 375162615 Here is a message from another chap using exactly the same build of MS Office Outlook - no problem. X-Persona: Received: from mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.216] by awasco.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A0DE7401B8; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:18:54 -0700 Received: from mxip10.cluster1.charter.net (mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.140]) by mxsf16.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6QF6YR0023700 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:06:34 -0400 Received: from 44ba00138.kfalls.or.charter.com (HELO SCOTTSGATEWAY) (68.186.0.138) by mxip10.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2004 11:06:32 -0400 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Ironport-AV: i="3.83,88,108900"; d="scan'208?jpg'208,145?dat'208,145,59"; a="140519816:sNHT19421620" Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Scott Lochard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Orin Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:06:30 -0700 Organization: LifeorDeathLeadership MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0060_01C472E7.76D7EA10" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: E4E4AE15AD8AD544BD6C22CBC36DF311E4922700 Thread-Index: AcRzIeZrtdYsyWeMTb6K4XIb1GNwxA== X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [209.225.28.216] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: IPNOTINMX, CATCHALLMAILS X-Declude-Date: 07/26/2004 15:06:30 [12] X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 375108670 Is it the ISP service that inserts (or should) the message-ID or is it Outlook? It does not make sense it would be the ISP service because it really shouldn't even know you are sending an email. So if it is the email client application (Microsoft Office Outlook) why does one incarnation insert the message header and the other not? I am not convinced that it is necessarily the message-id because I found a message from Barry Simpson using an even later version of Microsoft Office Outlook where the message-id appears in the same manner and no flag is generated. Now I am really confused. Is it something else causing this failure? X-Persona: Received: from declude.com [63.246.13.90] by awasco.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.07) id A421B009E; Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:26:25 -0800 Received: from Bart [68.162.218.198] by declude.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id AB311FD40074; Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:40:01 -0500 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Barry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Important Declude Update Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:43:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0034_01C4D84B.02BCA200" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcTYdOsB2FXQiyGFTg2powYSHhcaCQ== Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-ML1: NzI5 X-ML2: VGh1LCAyIERlYyAyMDA0IDA4OjQzOjM0IC0wNTAw X-ML3: QY969WtqWWSEQlARpEoFHITI4imZ2xl74aRUjTv/smaG5axEQub2RD+vbSwB4HRHiUzm78WolzKZy7Tdee3Fig== X-Note: This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (www.declude.com ) X-NRecips: 1 X-Reverse-IP: static-68-162-218-198.bos.east.verizon.net X-Weight: 0 (Whitelisted) X-Country-Chain: UNITED STATES->destination. X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [68.162.218.198] X-Declude-Spoolname: D1b311fd40074adf7.SMD Precedence: bulk
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMHEADERS question
It looks like someone's powerbook is connecting directly to your server based on the headers that you provided. Still, the same advice goes for anyone still running IMail 7.x or below and using Declude. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Actually this isn't "our user" but something I get frequently from outside and I am trying to give them a clue as to what they need to do to clean up their act. Thanks for the confirmation. At 02:08 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: It appears that it was sent without a Message-ID. The Message-ID shown is one that IMail inserted and not one that the E-mail client inserted. You should be whitelisting your own users if at all possible. Unfortunately you can't do this in IMail 7.07, but Declude does support this in 8.x or higher. With IMail 8.x+ and Declude, you can use WHITELIST AUTH so that this isn't an issue. You will get a lot of BADHEADERS, SPAMHEADERS, HELOBOGUS, and CMDSPACE failures on your own customers unless you have the ability to whitelist them. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Can anyone tell me why this is failing the SPAMHEADERS check? I know the reasons for the REVDNS and the HELOBOGUS but I am unsure about the SPAMHEADERS. I suspect it may be the placement of the MESSAGE-ID. Normally this appears near the top of the headers. Here it appears just above the Declude lines implying to me that Declude may have inserted the ID. OK, if that is the case then I would have to guess that the mail client "Direct Mail for Mac OS X" is "the weakest link" here. Am I correct? Received: from matthew-lundhs-powerbook.local [207.108.197.157] by wells.org (SMTPD32-7.07) id A7CE1CE7010E; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:06:54 -0800 From: "Weekly Update" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:04:25 -0800 Subject: KCPOP Weekly Update - February 23, 2006 X-Mailer: Direct Mail for Mac OS X MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.108.197.157] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: HELOBOGUS, REVDNS, SPAMHEADERS X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 433472669 --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA 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 EVA 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 EVA 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 EVA 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] SPAMHEADERS question
Actually this isn't "our user" but something I get frequently from outside and I am trying to give them a clue as to what they need to do to clean up their act. Thanks for the confirmation. At 02:08 PM 2/23/2006, Matt wrote: It appears that it was sent without a Message-ID. The Message-ID shown is one that IMail inserted and not one that the E-mail client inserted. You should be whitelisting your own users if at all possible. Unfortunately you can't do this in IMail 7.07, but Declude does support this in 8.x or higher. With IMail 8.x+ and Declude, you can use WHITELIST AUTH so that this isn't an issue. You will get a lot of BADHEADERS, SPAMHEADERS, HELOBOGUS, and CMDSPACE failures on your own customers unless you have the ability to whitelist them. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Can anyone tell me why this is failing the SPAMHEADERS check? I know the reasons for the REVDNS and the HELOBOGUS but I am unsure about the SPAMHEADERS. I suspect it may be the placement of the MESSAGE-ID. Normally this appears near the top of the headers. Here it appears just above the Declude lines implying to me that Declude may have inserted the ID. OK, if that is the case then I would have to guess that the mail client "Direct Mail for Mac OS X" is "the weakest link" here. Am I correct? Received: from matthew-lundhs-powerbook.local [207.108.197.157] by wells.org (SMTPD32-7.07) id A7CE1CE7010E; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:06:54 -0800 From: "Weekly Update" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:04:25 -0800 Subject: KCPOP Weekly Update - February 23, 2006 X-Mailer: Direct Mail for Mac OS X MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.108.197.157] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: HELOBOGUS, REVDNS, SPAMHEADERS X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 433472669 --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA 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 EVA 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 EVA 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] SPAMHEADERS question
It appears that it was sent without a Message-ID. The Message-ID shown is one that IMail inserted and not one that the E-mail client inserted. You should be whitelisting your own users if at all possible. Unfortunately you can't do this in IMail 7.07, but Declude does support this in 8.x or higher. With IMail 8.x+ and Declude, you can use WHITELIST AUTH so that this isn't an issue. You will get a lot of BADHEADERS, SPAMHEADERS, HELOBOGUS, and CMDSPACE failures on your own customers unless you have the ability to whitelist them. Matt Orin Wells wrote: Can anyone tell me why this is failing the SPAMHEADERS check? I know the reasons for the REVDNS and the HELOBOGUS but I am unsure about the SPAMHEADERS. I suspect it may be the placement of the MESSAGE-ID. Normally this appears near the top of the headers. Here it appears just above the Declude lines implying to me that Declude may have inserted the ID. OK, if that is the case then I would have to guess that the mail client "Direct Mail for Mac OS X" is "the weakest link" here. Am I correct? Received: from matthew-lundhs-powerbook.local [207.108.197.157] by wells.org (SMTPD32-7.07) id A7CE1CE7010E; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:06:54 -0800 From: "Weekly Update" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:04:25 -0800 Subject: KCPOP Weekly Update - February 23, 2006 X-Mailer: Direct Mail for Mac OS X MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.108.197.157] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: HELOBOGUS, REVDNS, SPAMHEADERS X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: U X-UIDL: 433472669 --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA 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 EVA 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] spamheaders
Are you forcing users to authenticate to Imail before sending, otherwise known as SMTP Authentication? If so, just put a line in the Global.CFG file like "WHITELIST AUTH" and those uses that authenticate will pass all tests. And yes, this requires Imail 8.x. John T eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:00 PM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders > > I care if my users aren't getting emails from anyone on the plant when their > emails are scored high due to the spamheaders test. I can't whitelist > everyone. > > I am not sure if you understand my question John? > > Travis > > - Original Message - > From: "John T (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:56 PM > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders > > > Who cares if the client is authenticating and you are whitelisting > authentication? > > John T > eServices For You > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:45 PM > > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders > > > > I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's > method > > of scanning outgoing email. Also note the emails also fail the test > > "cmdspace" (space in receipt to command). > > > > > > > > > Users/clients sending e-mail out should be authenticating and > > > authentication > > > should be whitelisted hence the test does not matter. > > > > > > As for receiving, find out what the common string is that is used in the > > > headers and add that to your whitelisting file giving credit for the > same > > > amount as the spamheaders test. > > > > > > John T > > > eServices For You > > > > > > >> Anyone using norton av 2005 with outlook express with outgoing mail > > > scanning > > >> enabled will trip the spamheaders test. I just thought everyone should > > >> know. I guess that just about obsoletes this test now? > > >> > > >> I am using declude 1.81 > > >> > > >> Travis > > > > > > --- > > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders
Not all of us chose to run a current version of IMail$$$. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T (Lists) > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:57 PM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders > > Who cares if the client is authenticating and you are whitelisting > authentication? > > John T > eServices For You > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:45 PM > > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders > > > > I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's > method > > of scanning outgoing email. Also note the emails also fail the test > > "cmdspace" (space in receipt to command). > > > > > > > > > Users/clients sending e-mail out should be authenticating and > > > authentication > > > should be whitelisted hence the test does not matter. > > > > > > As for receiving, find out what the common string is that is used in > the > > > headers and add that to your whitelisting file giving credit for the > same > > > amount as the spamheaders test. > > > > > > John T > > > eServices For You > > > > > > >> Anyone using norton av 2005 with outlook express with outgoing mail > > > scanning > > >> enabled will trip the spamheaders test. I just thought everyone > should > > >> know. I guess that just about obsoletes this test now? > > >> > > >> I am using declude 1.81 > > >> > > >> Travis > > > > > > --- > > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- 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] spamheaders
I care if my users aren't getting emails from anyone on the plant when their emails are scored high due to the spamheaders test. I can't whitelist everyone. I am not sure if you understand my question John? Travis - Original Message - From: "John T (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:56 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders Who cares if the client is authenticating and you are whitelisting authentication? John T eServices For You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:45 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's method of scanning outgoing email. Also note the emails also fail the test "cmdspace" (space in receipt to command). > Users/clients sending e-mail out should be authenticating and > authentication > should be whitelisted hence the test does not matter. > > As for receiving, find out what the common string is that is used in the > headers and add that to your whitelisting file giving credit for the same > amount as the spamheaders test. > > John T > eServices For You >> Anyone using norton av 2005 with outlook express with outgoing mail > scanning >> enabled will trip the spamheaders test. I just thought everyone should >> know. I guess that just about obsoletes this test now? >> >> I am using declude 1.81 >> >> Travis --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders
Who cares if the client is authenticating and you are whitelisting authentication? John T eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:45 PM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders > > I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's method > of scanning outgoing email. Also note the emails also fail the test > "cmdspace" (space in receipt to command). > > > > > Users/clients sending e-mail out should be authenticating and > > authentication > > should be whitelisted hence the test does not matter. > > > > As for receiving, find out what the common string is that is used in the > > headers and add that to your whitelisting file giving credit for the same > > amount as the spamheaders test. > > > > John T > > eServices For You > > > >> Anyone using norton av 2005 with outlook express with outgoing mail > > scanning > >> enabled will trip the spamheaders test. I just thought everyone should > >> know. I guess that just about obsoletes this test now? > >> > >> I am using declude 1.81 > >> > >> Travis > > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders
I understand that, but we don't have control over norton antivirus's method of scanning outgoing email. Also note the emails also fail the test "cmdspace" (space in receipt to command). Users/clients sending e-mail out should be authenticating and authentication should be whitelisted hence the test does not matter. As for receiving, find out what the common string is that is used in the headers and add that to your whitelisting file giving credit for the same amount as the spamheaders test. John T eServices For You Anyone using norton av 2005 with outlook express with outgoing mail scanning enabled will trip the spamheaders test. I just thought everyone should know. I guess that just about obsoletes this test now? I am using declude 1.81 Travis --- 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] spamheaders
Users/clients sending e-mail out should be authenticating and authentication should be whitelisted hence the test does not matter. As for receiving, find out what the common string is that is used in the headers and add that to your whitelisting file giving credit for the same amount as the spamheaders test. John T eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Sullivan > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:20 PM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] spamheaders > > Anyone using norton av 2005 with outlook express with outgoing mail scanning > enabled will trip the spamheaders test. I just thought everyone should > know. I guess that just about obsoletes this test now? > > I am using declude 1.81 > > Travis > > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Kami, Thank you for the reply. Barry sent me a new 2.0.3b to try. So far so good. Regards, Bill -- Original Message -- From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:00:49 -0500 >Hi Bill.. > >We simply changed our Declude.exe an hour after installing 2.0b since we had >issues - all we did was just moved the old declude.exe and copied over the >2.0b version. > >No problems.. > >Regards, >Kami > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bill.maillists >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:59 AM >To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com >Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b > >Barry, > >Thank you. To confirm, I should downgrade to 1.82 from 2.0b? Will this cause >any problems? > >Bill > >-- Original Message -- >From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com >Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:33:37 -0500 > >>Bill, >> >>New exe is being sent to you. >> >>Barry >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg >>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM >>To: declude.junkmail@declude.com >>Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b >> >>I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for >>2.0b available? >> >>Bill >> >> >>--- >>[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] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
When and were will this update be available? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:34 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b Bill, New exe is being sent to you. Barry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for 2.0b available? Bill --- [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 scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.299 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.299 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.299 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] === Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and all attachments are confidential and are for sole use of its intended recipient. It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee. If received in error, please contact the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and all attachments from your system. Thank you. === --- [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] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Barry, Thank you. To confirm, I should downgrade to 1.82 from 2.0b? Will this cause any problems? Bill -- Original Message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:33:37 -0500 >Bill, > >New exe is being sent to you. > >Barry > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM >To: declude.junkmail@declude.com >Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b > >I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for 2.0b >available? > >Bill > > >--- >[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] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Barry, Please disregard my last message. I received the new file after an email from you regarding the download of 1.82. Thank you, Bill -- Original Message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:33:37 -0500 >Bill, > >New exe is being sent to you. > >Barry > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM >To: declude.junkmail@declude.com >Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b > >I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for 2.0b >available? > >Bill > > >--- >[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] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Hi Bill.. We simply changed our Declude.exe an hour after installing 2.0b since we had issues - all we did was just moved the old declude.exe and copied over the 2.0b version. No problems.. Regards, Kami -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bill.maillists Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:59 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b Barry, Thank you. To confirm, I should downgrade to 1.82 from 2.0b? Will this cause any problems? Bill -- Original Message -- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:33:37 -0500 >Bill, > >New exe is being sent to you. > >Barry > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM >To: declude.junkmail@declude.com >Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b > >I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for >2.0b available? > >Bill > > >--- >[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] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b
Bill, New exe is being sent to you. Barry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Newberg Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 AM To: declude.junkmail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamheaders fix for 2.0b I am running 2.0b and have the Spamheaders problem. Is there a fix for 2.0b available? Bill --- [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] "SPAMHEADERS"?
Kevin and Dan- Thanks! -Dave - Original Message - From: "Kevin Bilbee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:36 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] "SPAMHEADERS"? > You can use the tool Scott has setup to look up the reason a message has > failed. > > http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420e > > > Here is the link to your error code. > > > Kevin Bilbee > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Doherty > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:26 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] "SPAMHEADERS"? > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Can anyone tell me why this one failed the SPAMHEADERS test? > > > > -Dave Doherty > > Skywaves, Inc. > > > > > > > > Received: from IlanXP [68.236.177.124] by inettec.com with ESMTP > > (SMTPD32-8.05) id A69B29201E4; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:30:03 -0400 > > From: "Ilan Cyzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Dave Doherty'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [11] whitelist > > Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:32:41 -0400 > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > boundary="=_NextPart_000_0066_01C43C13.6E051AD0" > > X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 > > Thread-Index: AcQ8NPSd4vuOexbQSj+TGJ7Rqs6ypw== > > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam > > [420e]. > > X-RBL-Warning: MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS: This E-mail came from a potential > > spam source listed in MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS. > > X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMHEADERS [3], MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS [8] > > X-Spam-Total-Weight: [11] > > X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [68.236.177.124] > > X-Declude-Spoolname: Df69b029201e40c72.SMD > > X-Note: This E-mail was sent from > > dpvc-68-236-177-124.ny325.east.verizon.net > > ([68.236.177.124]). > > X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Status: U > > X-UIDL: 343954817 > > > > > > --- > > [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] "SPAMHEADERS"?
You can use the tool Scott has setup to look up the reason a message has failed. http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420e Here is the link to your error code. Kevin Bilbee > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Doherty > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] "SPAMHEADERS"? > > > Hi, > > Can anyone tell me why this one failed the SPAMHEADERS test? > > -Dave Doherty > Skywaves, Inc. > > > > Received: from IlanXP [68.236.177.124] by inettec.com with ESMTP > (SMTPD32-8.05) id A69B29201E4; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:30:03 -0400 > From: "Ilan Cyzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Dave Doherty'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [11] whitelist > Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:32:41 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="=_NextPart_000_0066_01C43C13.6E051AD0" > X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 > Thread-Index: AcQ8NPSd4vuOexbQSj+TGJ7Rqs6ypw== > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam > [420e]. > X-RBL-Warning: MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS: This E-mail came from a potential > spam source listed in MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS. > X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMHEADERS [3], MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS [8] > X-Spam-Total-Weight: [11] > X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [68.236.177.124] > X-Declude-Spoolname: Df69b029201e40c72.SMD > X-Note: This E-mail was sent from > dpvc-68-236-177-124.ny325.east.verizon.net > ([68.236.177.124]). > X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Status: U > X-UIDL: 343954817 > > > --- > [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] "SPAMHEADERS"?
http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=420e - Original Message - From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] "SPAMHEADERS"? > Hi, > > Can anyone tell me why this one failed the SPAMHEADERS test? > > -Dave Doherty > Skywaves, Inc. > > > > Received: from IlanXP [68.236.177.124] by inettec.com with ESMTP > (SMTPD32-8.05) id A69B29201E4; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:30:03 -0400 > From: "Ilan Cyzner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Dave Doherty'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [11] whitelist > Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:32:41 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="=_NextPart_000_0066_01C43C13.6E051AD0" > X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 > Thread-Index: AcQ8NPSd4vuOexbQSj+TGJ7Rqs6ypw== > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam > [420e]. > X-RBL-Warning: MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS: This E-mail came from a potential > spam source listed in MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS. > X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMHEADERS [3], MAILPOLICE-DYNA-REVDNS [8] > X-Spam-Total-Weight: [11] > X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [68.236.177.124] > X-Declude-Spoolname: Df69b029201e40c72.SMD > X-Note: This E-mail was sent from dpvc-68-236-177-124.ny325.east.verizon.net > ([68.236.177.124]). > X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Status: U > X-UIDL: 343954817 > > > --- > [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. > --- > Sign up for virus-free and spam-free e-mail with Nexus Technology Group > http://www.nexustechgroup.com/mailscan > > --- 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.
