RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer

Thanks, Scott. I have just installed sniffer this afternoon. It's working very well. >Is it possible to assign a weight to sniffer? Yes. >If so, what is the proper syntax? SNIFFER external nonzero "C:\IMail\Declude\Sniffer\sniffer.exe " 10 0 That would define a weight of 10

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer

FTC Plans Crackdown on Junk E-mail http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44477,00.html --- [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 PROT

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer

>Is it possible to assign a weight to sniffer? Yes. >If so, what is the proper syntax? SNIFFER external nonzero "C:\IMail\Declude\Sniffer\sniffer.exe " 10 0 That would define a weight of 10 for E-mails that were caught by Sniffer. -Scott --- [T

[Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer

Is it possible to assign a weight to sniffer? If so, what is the proper syntax? --- [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 "u

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Is my stuff getting here

>Are my posts making it here? Yes, they are. -Scott --- [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 "unsubsc

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

>> One person reported being able to send mail to multiple recipients with an .eml file (using a comma between them, IE "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]") << Yes, I have been doing this with success. It's actually documented! --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (ht

[Declude.JunkMail] Is my stuff getting here

Hello, Are my posts making it here? Bennie --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL

[Declude.JunkMail] When should I use the hold command.....

Hello, I was just looking at the ..imail\spool\spam\ folder on my system... starting at 4:48 pm EST 01/30 and ending at 9:14 EST 01/31 my system stopped 16,145 emails I am using hold on ORDB and SPAMCOP...should I change this.. When I look thru these emails... I have not found one that w

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.35a issue with WARN action identified

as usual, that was a quick response. thanks tito - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:06 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] 1.35a issue with WARN action identified > FYI, we have identified an issue with v

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

>Can a .eml file be used to bounce a message for any test? Or just the ones >that you have documented? The BOUNCE message can be used on any test, and can have an .eml file associated with it ("TESTNAMEbounce.eml", or "TESTNAMEalert.eml" for the ALERT action). >If so, could you have 2 addres

[Declude.JunkMail] 1.35a issue with WARN action identified

FYI, we have identified an issue with v1.35a where the WARN action may not work properly with v1.35a. This will be corrected in a release tomorrow (Friday). -Scott --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

Can a .eml file be used to bounce a message for any test? Or just the ones that you have documented? If so, could you have 2 addresses on the To: line of the .eml file to accomplish what Chuck is trying to do? Todd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On

RE: MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] IPSwitch email failed SPAMCOP

The blocks on aol servers at spamcop are not ordb related (as far as I know). They are some sort of spamcop test: when they get so many complaints about email from a particular server they block the server for a while. [EMAIL PROTECTED] DFW Metro 817-792-3332 Toll Free 1-888-585-3332 http://www.C

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:Protecting Exchange servers

We sit in front of several Exchange servers. The IMail manual does a fair job of explaining the tasks but basically you will need to set up the DNS servers so the your IMail server is the primary MX for that domain. Next you will need to add the Exchange server IP address and domain information to

[Declude.JunkMail] SortMonster Sniffer

A few people have already asked me about SortMonster Sniffer ( http://www.sortmonster.com ), so I thought I would let everyone know a little more about it. It is a spam detection program by MicroNeil Research Corporation that analyzes the content of E-mail, rather than the IP address of the se

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

Reply to: R. Scott Perry Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly? on Thursday 2:52:03 PM This would explain my %testsfailed% experiences. I even tried putting the WARNs 'above' the HOLDs but this made no difference, just so ya know. -- Roger Heath - Copy of Original Message

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

OK The only reason for the double bounce was to send a different message to a special mail box for perusal. I don't have time to continuously scan a Hold folder for legitimate mail so I bounce it all and let the sender sort it out. I only wanted a way to track the efficiency, spot checking it wh

[Declude.JunkMail] MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:SPAMREVIEW rules!

Tom, thanks for writing this. It beats my 3 hours perl script by a few light years :-) --- [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 t

[Declude.JunkMail] MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:Protecting Exchange servers

I briefly touched on this question with Scott, but I guess I need a little more detail. Is anyone out there protecting their exchange servers with declude? I know that we need to have one box for Exchange and another for Imail. How do we get email destined for the exchange server to go to imail fi

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

>I seem to be having a simular problem. I did have it set to send two >different bounces, one to the sender and one to a mail box to help analyze >the spam being recived, but only the first one went. That is the intended behavior. Only one bounce action will be performed for the E-mail. Othe

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

Scott, I seem to be having a simular problem. I did have it set to send two different bounces, one to the sender and one to a mail box to help analyze the spam being recived, but only the first one went. When SpamReview was released, I thought I would try the HOLD action for the second test, no

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Help! Creating Black Lists

>Did you see anything wrong with my previous post ? No, but there is an issue that has been reported with 1.35a where using multiple actions on an E-mail may not work as they would before (IE an E-mail may be held without the warning added to the headers). -Scott ---

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

>I've added 2 tests in my global.cfg called >MYBLACKLIST & MYBLACKLIST2 (identical for 2 different actions) >and I've added 2 actions in my $default$.junkmail file to >WARN and HOLD this mail. A lot of the domains in my BLACKLIST.TXT file >are being held for other reasons. >Shouldn't the BLACKLIS

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Help! Creating Black Lists

Did you see anything wrong with my previous post ? Cris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Help! Creating Black Lists >Can you be

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Reverse DNS

>Ok, thanks for the help Scott. I guess it is confusing to me. That's OK -- DNS itself is tricky enough, but reverse DNS makes it much more complex. >As long as I have a reverse DNS, it is compliant. That's correct. >My first thought was that the reverse >DNS had to be for the same domain n

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Reverse DNS

Ok, thanks for the help Scott. I guess it is confusing to me. As long as I have a reverse DNS, it is compliant. My first thought was that the reverse DNS had to be for the same domain name. I used the DNS report tool for my virtual domain, and indeed I no longer fail the reverse DNS test. Thi

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Help! Creating Black Lists

>Can you be more specific on how to setup your own black list in Declude? >Yes, I know there's a manual at >www.declude.com/junkmail/manual.htm >. Well, rather than trying to guess what you're having troubles with, how about either asking a specifi

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Reverse DNS

>Either my situation is different, or I'm not understanding. Your situation is the same -- I was just using the "proper" examples. If you substitute "customer_example.com" for "virtual.example.com" in my example, you'll see what I mean. >My customer, a virtual host on my Imail server, is cus

[Declude.JunkMail] Help! Creating Black Lists

Can you be more specific on how to setup your own black list in Declude? Yes, I know there's a manual at www.declude.com/junkmail/manual.htm . If anyone else has created their own black list - please give me an example.   Thanks in advance,   Terry Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

[Declude.JunkMail] Am I blacklisting correctly?

I've added 2 tests in my global.cfg called MYBLACKLIST & MYBLACKLIST2 (identical for 2 different actions) and I've added 2 actions in my $default$.junkmail file to WARN and HOLD this mail. A lot of the domains in my BLACKLIST.TXT file are being held for other reasons. Shouldn't the BLACKLIST warn

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Reverse DNS

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 2:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Reverse DNS > > >I have been playing with my Declude settings only to realize my > own

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Reverse DNS

>I have been playing with my Declude settings only to realize my own reverse >DNS was not configured. My DNS provider told me that he can't provide >reverse DNS: in order to provide a reverse lookup, the nameservers have to >have a >delegation for the entire netblock that IP address resides in.

[Declude.JunkMail] Reverse DNS

I have been playing with my Declude settings only to realize my own reverse DNS was not configured. My DNS provider told me that he can't provide reverse DNS: in order to provide a reverse lookup, the nameservers have to have a delegation for the entire netblock that IP address resides in. Thus,

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] XOUTHEADER ISSUE?

> We upgraded to v1.35a this morning and now the XOUTHEADER Message > is being >displayed at the top of EVERY outgoing message. This used to just be in the >headers I thought. Is this something new? Is there a way to put it back in >just the headers. Could you E-mail me your \IMail\D

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

>We are getting this same symptom. We are still in testing mode, and I'm >alone in the office today, so I'm not going to mess with it right now, but I >thought you would want to know. > >1.34 > 1.35a was the upgrade that changed it. I'm going to do some testing here to see if I can reproduce t

[Declude.JunkMail] XOUTHEADER ISSUE?

X-Note: This E-mail was scanned for spam by EI8HT LEGS (GetAFreeWebsite.Com). Hello All, We upgraded to v1.35a this morning and now the XOUTHEADER Message is being displayed at the top of EVERY outgoing message. This used to just be in the headers I thought. Is this something new? Is

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

I'll give the log files for both versions 1.34 and 1.35a and sent it to you off list. tito - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning: > > >No, I

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

We are getting this same symptom. We are still in testing mode, and I'm alone in the office today, so I'm not going to mess with it right now, but I thought you would want to know. 1.34 > 1.35a was the upgrade that changed it. - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

>No, I used the same config files in both versions. What may help is using the debug mode. To use the debug mode, you can temporarily change the "LOGLEVEL LOW" line in \IMail\Declude\global.cfg to "LOGLEVEL DEBUG". Then, after an E-mail arrives that would normally be held and have the warnin

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] The weighting system, and my over complication of things.

Scott, Thursday, January 31, 2002 you wrote: SP> I want to mark the 15 threshold as SPAM in the subject so my SP> customers can SP> do their own filtering. SP> I will probably also SP> HOLD anything hitting a mark of 20 or 30. Perhaps this information will be of some benefit. On 12/22/2001 we b

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] DSN:Naming body headers

>I like the below idea from Stu. I would like to add, that it would be nice >if it could add a whole line, so users don't get the following: > >REVDNS Hey Paul,... The HEADER action (possibly to be renamed soon) should add a "return" to the end of the line, so if you use: REVDNS HEA

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] DSN:Naming body headers

I like the below idea from Stu. I would like to add, that it would be nice if it could add a whole line, so users don't get the following: REVDNS Hey Paul,... Thanks, Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday

RE: MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] IPSwitch email failed SPAMCOP

My point WAS to aggravate your customers into aggravating their freinds and family who can complain to AOL. Only when the paying customers get fed up will AOL change its practices!!! I actually refused to accept email (because of SPAM checks) from my inlaws until they changed from AOL to another

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

Hi Scott, No, I used the same config files in both versions. Tito - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning: > X-Note: This E-mail was scanned

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

>Before the update, on the HOLD emails, using the spamreview (which is >totally awesome program BTW), I can see Junk Warnings on almost all the held >emails. Now not a single Junk warning on any of the held emails. There weren't any changes to 1.35 that should have caused the change. Did you m

Re: MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] IPSwitch email failed SPAMCOP

Hey Chuck,, I have been looking at the weighting system... Scott has a good plan... does anyone have any suggestions on how they do the weighting system.. Bennie - Original Message - From: "Chuck Schick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:30 P

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] The weighting system, and my overcomplication of things.

>I've seen some mention on this list of "freemail" and other tests, but don't >really see any docs to explain these extras to me. The FREEMAIL test is a test that someone defined using the "Your own sender blacklists" section of the manual (in "Advanced Configuration"). Note that the FREEMAIL

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

Hi Scott, Before the update, on the HOLD emails, using the spamreview (which is totally awesome program BTW), I can see Junk Warnings on almost all the held emails. Now not a single Junk warning on any of the held emails. Tito - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] IPSwitch email failed SPAMCOP

AOL is not in ORDB.org but some of the aol mail servers are periodically in spamcop. So if you put SPAMCOP HOLD you may end up holding a lot of AOL and compuserve mail from time to time. I think the weighting protocols are the only thing that work for us. Individual tests each have their own

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

>I just upgraded to 1.35a from 1.34. After the upgrade, the X-RBL-Warning: >in the headers were gone. I have only SPAMCOP and PERCENT on HOLD. If you use the HOLD action, the X-RBL-Warning: headers may not appear in the E-mail that has been held. Or are you using the WARN action for other t

[Declude.JunkMail] Lost all X-RBL-Warning:

Hi Scott, I just upgraded to 1.35a from 1.34. After the upgrade, the X-RBL-Warning: in the headers were gone. I have only SPAMCOP and PERCENT on HOLD. I did not change anything on my global.cfg nor $default$.junkmail. Is this normal? Tito Macapinlac, AEBC Internet Corp. 138-2981 Simpson R

Re: MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] IPSwitch email failed SPAMCOP

Hello Paul, I use the SPAMCOP HOLD and I have no problems with aol email... I checked on the ORDB.org website and listed the aol.com for lookup and did not find it blocked by anyone course as was said before.. it could be because people are afraid of the BIG BAD AOL well the only reaso

[Declude.JunkMail] The weighting system, and my over complication of things.

I'm looking to actually put our Junkmail protection into production today (it's been adding info to the headers for 3 weeks, and some customers have noticed). I want to base everything off of the weighting system, but have some questions about what is available to me. I've seen some mention on t

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] DSN:Naming body headers

I like these, too. Todd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] DSN:Naming body headers How about BODYHEADER BODYFOOTER Stu At 08:4

RE: MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] IPSwitch email failed SPAMCOP

This is going to cause a firestorm!!! <$.02> AOL should be one of the targets of our anti SPAM efforts. Then when enough mail servers reject AOL mail, the AOL users will complain loudly enough (or leave AOL) and AOL will have to change its ways. AOL is counting on us being afraid of the "big, b

[Declude.JunkMail] SpamReview Support

As expexted my office is without power for who knows how long. Our server has been moved to another location and is online so you can download spamreview if you like but I will not be able to support you until we get power back. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

>> can anyone think of a better names than HEADER/FOOTER << Prolog/Epilog Banner/Trailer Top/Bottom Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax:+1 201 934-9206 --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mai

[Declude.JunkMail] The Hold Command

Hello, I was just looking at the ..imail\spool\spam\ folder on my system... starting at 4:48 pm EST 01/30 and ending at 9:14 EST 01/31 my system stopped 16,145 emails I am using hold on ORDB and SPAMCOP...should I change this.. When I look thru these emails... I have not found one that w

[Declude.JunkMail] Am I getting Out.

Just checking to see if I am getting out... --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL P

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

I like that better than mine :-) _M | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Gray - | System Administrator | Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:30 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion | | | BOD

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

BODYSTART BODYEND :-) - Tony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion > > > > >The "HEADER" action is misle

[Declude.JunkMail] DSN:Naming body headers

How about BODYHEADER BODYFOOTER Stu At 08:44 AM 01/31/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >>The "HEADER" action is misleading - it does not add a message to the header, >>it adds it to the beginning of the body of the message. Your setup is >>actually working as it was designed to. The manual is clear

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

> > When one of these E-mails is delivered that should be held, do the Declude > > JunkMail logs show whether or not the appropriate test failed? For > > example, if TEST and TEST2 are defined the same, do the logs show it > > failing both tests or just one? >Just the one, as near as I can tell

Re[3]: [Declude.JunkMail] ORDB:More than one Action?

Hi, that makes sense... Thanks, Andy Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.thumpernet.com 315-282-0020 Thursday, January 31, 2002, 9:42:18 AM, you wrote: >>Sorry Scott, you lost me on that one... RSP> That's OK, you're not the first I've lost. :) >>SPAMCOP2 is not a defined test, so how i

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

Just the one, as near as I can tell. I sent you a pile of examples, once upon a time. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header con

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] ORDB:More than one Action?

>Sorry Scott, you lost me on that one... That's OK, you're not the first I've lost. :) >SPAMCOP2 is not a defined test, so how is that going to work? By defining it. The way that Declude is set up, there are no hard-coded tests (just hard-coded test types, like the "ip4r" test type that mos

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] ORDB:More than one Action?

Hi, Sorry Scott, you lost me on that one... SPAMCOP2 is not a defined test, so how is that going to work? Thanks, Andy Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.thumpernet.com 315-282-0020 Thursday, January 31, 2002, 8:56:30 AM, you wrote: RSP> For example, where you now have: RSP> SPA

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

>BUT: I have several tests duplicated in order to perform multiple actions, >WARNS >and HOLDS primarily. So, my presumption is that if TEST and TEST2 are the >duplicates, then if TEST fails then TEST2 should fail as well. And I see >plenty of cases where that is not happening. I get mail in my I

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

Perhaps MSG_BODY_BEGIN MSG_BODY_END or MSG_BODY_TOP MSG_BODY_BOTTOM - By the way, can anyone think of a better names than HEADER/FOOTER when dealing with text added to the body of the E-mail? That *is* very confusing (especially when trying to explain it "The HEADER action adds a hea

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

I get results from %testsfailed%, as I mentioned yesterday, but I notice that there's a problem with the tests in general. This problem existed before this variable was added, so I don't think there's a connection. BUT: I have several tests duplicated in order to perform multiple actions, WARNS an

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

How about MSG_TOP and MSG_BOTTOM ? _M | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry | Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:45 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion | | | | >The "HEADER" action i

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

>No, I don't think it is. I'm not using "HEADER" actions at all, see my >response to Tony. In that case, if you can send me your global.cfg and $default$.JunkMail files, along with the complete headers (and the extra header in the body) of one of the E-mails this happened to, it should help to

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ORDB:More than one Action?

>Can more than one action be indicated for a particular test >ie WARN BOUNCE HOLD > >can this be done all on the same line >or can it be done on separate lines >or can it be done at all? Although Declude JunkMail doesn't have support for multiple actions, there is a way around this. You can se

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

No, I don't think it is. I'm not using "HEADER" actions at all, see my response to Tony. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header c

[Declude.JunkMail] ORDB:More than one Action?

Can more than one action be indicated for a particular test ie WARN BOUNCE HOLD   can this be done all on the same line or can it be done on separate lines or can it be done at all?   Thanks,   Mark EslickUnlimited Data SystemsPO Box 342Boonville MO  65233(

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

>The "HEADER" action is misleading - it does not add a message to the header, >it adds it to the beginning of the body of the message. Your setup is >actually working as it was designed to. The manual is clear on this, but >the name chosen is misleading. Good catch -- that's the problem. By t

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

I'm not using the HEADER action, I'm using the XINHEADER feature on all inbound mail. And it's the WARN action that's adding the header that's appearing as message text. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Gray - System Administrator Sent

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

>What I'm seeing in actual message Dxxx.SMD files is a blank line between >the X-Notes and the X-RBL-Warnings, so that the X-RBL-Warnings are showing >up as visible in the delivered messages. Is this a glitch, or have I done >something incorrect in my setups? That does sound like a glitch.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

Reply to: John Shacklett Re: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion on Thursday 7:20:44 AM I tried several times yesterday to get %testsfailed% working but it seemed to shut off weighing all together. When we dropped this variable everything returned to normal. We never saw tests listed here b

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

The "HEADER" action is misleading - it does not add a message to the header, it adds it to the beginning of the body of the message. Your setup is actually working as it was designed to. The manual is clear on this, but the name chosen is misleading. The WARN action is what you want to use if y

Re: MISSING_REVERSE_DNS:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Junkmailsettings?

>How would spamcop know how much legitimate email comes from a server. There are two theories. One is that mail to people with a spamcop.net address gets counted, the other is that mail to anyone running spamcop gets counted. The idea, in either case, isn't specifically that the mail is leg

[Declude.JunkMail] header confusion

Good morning, all. I have a sequence of XINHEADER lines defined in my global.cfg, many based on suggestions from Roger Heath and others. They look something like: XINHEADER X-Note: Total spam weight of this E-mail is %WEIGHT%. XINHEADER X-Note: QueInControl: %QUEUENAME% (%NRECIPS%) X