Along a similar line, can outgoing rules be per domain? If so, how would we
do that?
Chuck Frolick
ArgoLink.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Along a similar line, can outgoing rules be per domain? If so, how would we
do that?
In Declude JunkMail, the only per-user/per-domain settings are the actions.
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail
I've got a strange situation with one of our users. He keeps getting mail from a porn
spammer even though I've set up a specific test just for him to attempt to get rid of
all mail from 3 specific domains.
I've defined a test in the global.cfg file called PERMBLACKLIST with a weight of 10.
Hi,
I have seen discussion on word filters - but no reference to syntax and
application in the manual. Can someone give me a quick overview on what
the available syntax is and where to apply it?
Please .cc me as I am on digest ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Many thanks,
George
---
[This E-mail was
I have seen discussion on word filters - but no reference to syntax and
application in the manual. Can someone give me a quick overview on what
the available syntax is and where to apply it?
Please .cc me as I am on digest ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The b***s are getting sneaky. The log files do not show the same info as
below and obviously the headers are not correct as an email from hotmail via
attbi.com with a yahoo return?
This is actually fairly common:
Received: from StarGazer.TenForward.com [65.161.10.3] by tenforward.com
The spammer didn't really have to resort to anything tricky (except
perhaps
figuring that some people would automatically whitelist hotmail.com, or
perhaps send complaints there rather than to attbi.com).
I do not whitelist yahoo, hotmail, msn or AOL for this reason. I wait and
whitelsit an
The E-mail looks like it would have failed both the SPAMHEADERS test (for
a
missing Message-ID: header) and the BADHEADERS test (for a missing Date:
header), but it looks like your gateway server added those headers when it
received the E-mail.
Postfix did this? Is there a way to correct
The E-mail looks like it would have failed both the SPAMHEADERS test (for a
missing Message-ID: header) and the BADHEADERS test (for a missing Date:
header), but it looks like your gateway server added those headers when it
received the E-mail.
Postfix did this? Is there a way to
I am wondering if there is a particular order to Declude filters
that will cause them to be more efficient?
No.
In this light do they add up weights till the violate a threshold then
process? I was
just thinking if the program could DELETE at WEIGHT 35, for
example, as opposed to
10 matches
Mail list logo
