Re: [spamdyke-users] New version: spamdyke 4.0.4

[kjl]

Thanks Sam, great work!
Working ok here, no errors.


kjl


> spamdyke version 4.0.4 is now available:
> http://www.spamdyke.org/
>
> This version fixes two bugs.  The first is a compiler warning on 64-bit
Linux systems.  Thanks to kjl for reporting this one.  The second is a
logging bug that was sending log messages to both standard error and the
system log.  Thanks to Eric Shubert for reporting this one.
>
> Version 4.x is NOT backwards compatible with 3.x; be sure to read the
documentation before upgrading.
>
> Version 4.0.4 is backwards-compatible with version 4.0.3; simply replacing
the old binary with the new one should be safe.
>
> -- Sam Clippinger
>
> ___
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] senders getting a bounce back on greylisted messages

[Michael Colvin]

FYI, the default retry for sending for Exchange is 15 minutes.  So if your
greylisting is more than that, Exchange servers will try multiple times to
send during your greylisting period.


Michael J. Colvin
NorCal Internet Services
www.norcalisp.com

 




> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamdyke-users-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Clippinger
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:27 AM
> To: spamdyke users
> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] senders getting a bounce back on greylisted
> messages
> 
> The sending server should only generate a warning if it's been delayed
> too long.  In this case, it's possible the Exchange server is attempting
> delivery multiple times in rapid succession within the time limit set by
> "graylist-min-secs", then _not_ attempting delivery after that.  It
> could be concluding that your server is down and will remain down for
> some time, so it's warning the sender about it.  I know Sendmail will do
> this (by default) if it can't send the message within the first 12 hours.
> 
> Your mail logs could probably reveal the pattern of Exchange's
> redelivery attempts.  You could then try lowering (or removing) your
> "graylist-min-secs" setting to match.
> 
> -- Sam Clippinger
> 
> dnk wrote:
> > Good day all,
> >
> > I have a quick question when a message is greylisted by a server,
> > should the sending server issue a bounce back to the original sender?
> >
> >
> > Spamdyke itself is obviously doing its job, but the issue I am having
> > is that the non technical users are assuming the email never went
> > through and hence I am getting an influx of support calls.
> >
> > I predominately notice that it is an issue when it is a MS Exchange
> > server that is sending to my qmail server.
> >
> >
> > Below is a sample of what the original sender sees
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: September 3, 2008 6:52:00 PM PDT (CA)
> > To: "User namel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Delivery Delayed: Documents signing w/c Sept 29
> >
> >
> > Delivery is delayed to these recipients or = distribution lists:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > etc, etc
> >
> > Subject: Documents signing w/c Sept 29
> >
> > This message has not yet been delivered. Microsoft Exchange will =
> > continue to try delivering the message on your behalf.
> >
> > Delivery of this message will be attempted until 9/8/2008 9:45:56 PM =
> > (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
> > Microsoft = Exchange will notify you if the message can't be delivered
> > by that = time.
> >
> > 
> > Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007
> >
> >
> >
> > So if they actually read the message, they would see that the message
> > is simply delayed.
> >
> > I am just curious how other people are dealing with this. I am
> > assuming simply grin and bear it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Dustin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > spamdyke-users mailing list
> > spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> > http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
> >
> ___
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] New version: spamdyke 4.0.4

[Eric Shubert]

Please ignore this one. :(
I miss-addressed it (again).

Eric Shubert wrote:
> What's the word on qtp release? It appears that 1.4.5 doesn't have the
> updated qtp-install-spamdyke. That release was missing the updated
> qtp-newmodel as well, but did happen to contain qtp-install-rpmforge.
> 
> Let me know when we can get this straightened out so we can announce the
> release to the list.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Sam Clippinger wrote:
>> spamdyke version 4.0.4 is now available:
>>  http://www.spamdyke.org/
>>
>> This version fixes two bugs.  The first is a compiler warning on 64-bit 
>> Linux systems.  Thanks to kjl for reporting this one.  The second is a 
>> logging bug that was sending log messages to both standard error and the 
>> system log.  Thanks to Eric Shubert for reporting this one.
>>
>> Version 4.x is NOT backwards compatible with 3.x; be sure to read the 
>> documentation before upgrading.
>>
>> Version 4.0.4 is backwards-compatible with version 4.0.3; simply replacing 
>> the old binary with the new one should be safe.
>>
>> -- Sam Clippinger
>>
> 
> 


-- 
-Eric 'shubes'
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] senders getting a bounce back on greylisted messages

[Sam Clippinger]

The sending server should only generate a warning if it's been delayed 
too long.  In this case, it's possible the Exchange server is attempting 
delivery multiple times in rapid succession within the time limit set by 
"graylist-min-secs", then _not_ attempting delivery after that.  It 
could be concluding that your server is down and will remain down for 
some time, so it's warning the sender about it.  I know Sendmail will do 
this (by default) if it can't send the message within the first 12 hours.

Your mail logs could probably reveal the pattern of Exchange's 
redelivery attempts.  You could then try lowering (or removing) your 
"graylist-min-secs" setting to match.

-- Sam Clippinger

dnk wrote:
> Good day all,
>
> I have a quick question when a message is greylisted by a server,  
> should the sending server issue a bounce back to the original sender?
>
>
> Spamdyke itself is obviously doing its job, but the issue I am having  
> is that the non technical users are assuming the email never went  
> through and hence I am getting an influx of support calls.
>
> I predominately notice that it is an issue when it is a MS Exchange  
> server that is sending to my qmail server.
>
>
> Below is a sample of what the original sender sees
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: September 3, 2008 6:52:00 PM PDT (CA)
> To: "User namel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Delivery Delayed: Documents signing w/c Sept 29
>
>
> Delivery is delayed to these recipients or = distribution lists:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> etc, etc
>
> Subject: Documents signing w/c Sept 29
>
> This message has not yet been delivered. Microsoft Exchange will =  
> continue to try delivering the message on your behalf.
>
> Delivery of this message will be attempted until 9/8/2008 9:45:56 PM =  
> (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.  
> Microsoft = Exchange will notify you if the message can't be delivered  
> by that = time.
>
> 
> Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007
>
>
>
> So if they actually read the message, they would see that the message  
> is simply delayed.
>
> I am just curious how other people are dealing with this. I am  
> assuming simply grin and bear it?
>
>
>
> Dustin
>
>
>
>
> ___
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>   
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] New version: spamdyke 4.0.4

[Eric Shubert]

What's the word on qtp release? It appears that 1.4.5 doesn't have the
updated qtp-install-spamdyke. That release was missing the updated
qtp-newmodel as well, but did happen to contain qtp-install-rpmforge.

Let me know when we can get this straightened out so we can announce the
release to the list.

Thanks.

Sam Clippinger wrote:
> spamdyke version 4.0.4 is now available:
>   http://www.spamdyke.org/
> 
> This version fixes two bugs.  The first is a compiler warning on 64-bit Linux 
> systems.  Thanks to kjl for reporting this one.  The second is a logging bug 
> that was sending log messages to both standard error and the system log.  
> Thanks to Eric Shubert for reporting this one.
> 
> Version 4.x is NOT backwards compatible with 3.x; be sure to read the 
> documentation before upgrading.
> 
> Version 4.0.4 is backwards-compatible with version 4.0.3; simply replacing 
> the old binary with the new one should be safe.
> 
> -- Sam Clippinger
> 


-- 
-Eric 'shubes'
___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

[spamdyke-users] senders getting a bounce back on greylisted messages

[dnk]

Good day all,

I have a quick question when a message is greylisted by a server,  
should the sending server issue a bounce back to the original sender?


Spamdyke itself is obviously doing its job, but the issue I am having  
is that the non technical users are assuming the email never went  
through and hence I am getting an influx of support calls.

I predominately notice that it is an issue when it is a MS Exchange  
server that is sending to my qmail server.


Below is a sample of what the original sender sees


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 3, 2008 6:52:00 PM PDT (CA)
To: "User namel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Delivery Delayed: Documents signing w/c Sept 29


Delivery is delayed to these recipients or = distribution lists:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

etc, etc

Subject: Documents signing w/c Sept 29

This message has not yet been delivered. Microsoft Exchange will =  
continue to try delivering the message on your behalf.

Delivery of this message will be attempted until 9/8/2008 9:45:56 PM =  
(GMT) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.  
Microsoft = Exchange will notify you if the message can't be delivered  
by that = time.


Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007



So if they actually read the message, they would see that the message  
is simply delayed.

I am just curious how other people are dealing with this. I am  
assuming simply grin and bear it?



Dustin




___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] spamdyke for Plesk on Debian

[pe...@peter.nameservice.mobi]

> >> deb http://peter.nameservice.mobi/download/debian/ unstable main
> 
> why is it in unstable ?
All of mine packages are unstable! ;)


___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

[spamdyke-users] New version: spamdyke 4.0.4

[Sam Clippinger]

spamdyke version 4.0.4 is now available:
http://www.spamdyke.org/

This version fixes two bugs.  The first is a compiler warning on 64-bit Linux 
systems.  Thanks to kjl for reporting this one.  The second is a logging bug 
that was sending log messages to both standard error and the system log.  
Thanks to Eric Shubert for reporting this one.

Version 4.x is NOT backwards compatible with 3.x; be sure to read the 
documentation before upgrading.

Version 4.0.4 is backwards-compatible with version 4.0.3; simply replacing the 
old binary with the new one should be safe.

-- Sam Clippinger

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] spamdyke for Plesk on Debian

[Daniel Anliker]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:

Am Donnerstag, den 04.09.2008, 22:50 -0500 schrieb Sam Clippinger:
  
Thanks for the contribution!  You might consider posting this to the 
Plesk forums; requests for help installing spamdyke seem to come up 
regularly there.


-- Sam Clippinger


Hi Sam!
Okay, good idea.

But I post it here, because I think the author from this great software
have a right to know, what people outthere do with spamdyke.
  


>> deb http://peter.nameservice.mobi/download/debian/ unstable main

why is it in unstable ?


___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Re: [spamdyke-users] spamdyke for Plesk on Debian

[pe...@peter.nameservice.mobi]

Am Donnerstag, den 04.09.2008, 22:50 -0500 schrieb Sam Clippinger:
> Thanks for the contribution!  You might consider posting this to the 
> Plesk forums; requests for help installing spamdyke seem to come up 
> regularly there.
> 
> -- Sam Clippinger
Hi Sam!
Okay, good idea.

But I post it here, because I think the author from this great software
have a right to know, what people outthere do with spamdyke.

- Peter

___
spamdyke-users mailing list
spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users