I have an custom external test that gets passed the %NRECIPS%
variable. The test is never seeing a value for NRECIPS greater than
99. Is there something in the Declude code limiting this value to 99?
In some places in Declude JunkMail there is a limit of 100 recipients,
which is the recomme
> How do I go about doing this, while trying to keep the header intact so
that
> the user
> sees the msg as if it was never intercepted?
I avoid that by using HOLD instead of ROUTETO and then using Spam Review to
check the message. If it is legit, simple place it back in the queue.
John Tolmachof
Here Here!
I'm not defending them at all but they really should use something other
then that kiddy farm newsgroup to communicate with.
I really think that's half of their perception problem.
Of course their guerilla tactics don't help!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [
Is there a way I can get access to the real number of recipients even if it is over
100 (without parsing the Q*.SMD file)?
Perhaps a new variable %NTOTALRECIPS% ?
-Original Message-
From: "R. Scott Perry"
Sent: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 08:11:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] NRECIPS vari
Scott,
What about if you have SUBJECT 5 CONTAINS LINKS also? With that count
twice?
so will it fail the SUBJECT if it has links in the subject, and BODY if the
body has links in it? Or does it stop when it fails whichever is listed
first?
Paul
> It will only count it once. So an E-mail wi
What about if you have SUBJECT 5 CONTAINS LINKS also?
Each line in a filter will only be counted once. However:
so will it fail the SUBJECT if it has links in the subject, and BODY if the
body has links in it? Or does it stop when it fails whichever is listed
first?
If you have 2 separ
Is there a way I can get access to the real number of recipients even if
it is over 100 (without parsing the Q*.SMD file)?
Perhaps a new variable %NTOTALRECIPS% ?
In the next release, %NRECIPS% will reflect the actual number of
recipients, without the limit of 100 being imposed.
Awesome! Thanks Scott.
-Original Message-
From: "R. Scott Perry"
Sent: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:14:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] NRECIPS variable
>Is there a way I can get access to the real number of recipients even if
>it is over 100 (without parsing the Q*.SMD file)?
>Perhap
*Sorry if this is outside the realm in which the forum should be used.
Several of my customers have started asking me for reports on what
Declude is blocking for their domain or a certain user. Obtaining this
information was challenging manually sifting through the logs - to say
the least. I the
Lately, one of
our clients has been getting adult spam every day that passes all tests except SPAMHEADERS
and SPAMCHECK with a SPAMCHECK weight of 6, so it passes.
Looking through
the source code in the body, the only pattern I found was that the example name
changed every day but was a
Is there a way to bounce messages based on the failure of multiple tests?
Philip Butler
Internal Systems Engineer
Region VI ESC
phone 936.435.2503
fax 936.295.1447
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (
Is there a way to bounce messages based on the failure of multiple tests?
You can, using the weighting system. However, it is NOT RECOMMENDED.
Bouncing E-mail should *ONLY* been done when there is a very good chance
that it is legitimate mail (which is why bouncing should rarely be used --
> 99% of spam is sent with bogus return addresses, you just end up making
the
> spam problem worse. For example, if you receive 1,000 spams a day that
are
> caught (held) with the WEIGHT20 test, and then today change that action to
> bounce the E-mail, you are increasing spam worldwide by 1,000 sp
> 99% of spam is sent with bogus return addresses, you just end up making the
> spam problem worse. For example, if you receive 1,000 spams a day that are
> caught (held) with the WEIGHT20 test, and then today change that action to
> bounce the E-mail, you are increasing spam worldwide by 1,000
> Imagine if a spammer sends out 1,000,000 E-mails with *YOUR* return
> address. How are you going to feel about the company or ISP that bounces
> that spam to you?
I have adjusted my weights enough that the real spam does get trashed for
the most part. But the bounce messages help me know about
I have a user that I need to deliver 1000 held spam messages to. The user
is on a "Store and Forward" domain.
If I just copy the Q/D's back into the spool folder will not Declude Pro
just stop them again?
I assume I need to temporarily add a Whitelist To. Do I do this in
global.cfg for this user
on 2/4/03 1:23 PM, R. Scott Perry wrote:
>> Would it be possible to change the format to this?
>>
>> COMMENTS comments 5 x 10 0
>> COMMENTS comments 5 weight 10 0
>>
>> Where the number is the minimum needed to fail the test.
>> The second value indicates whether or not the admin wants a cum
They only get scanned once, so copy away.
John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
Fullerton, CA 92835
www.reliancesoft.com
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Sullivan
> Sent:
They only get scanned once, so copy away.
So even with Pro, all I need to do is drop them back in the Spool folder and
they'll get automatically delivered? This worked with Standard but I
thought we ran into a problem when we tried this with Pro since it does
outbound filtering as well.
Thanks
I have a user that I need to deliver 1000 held spam messages to. The user
is on a "Store and Forward" domain.
If I just copy the Q/D's back into the spool folder will not Declude Pro
just stop them again?
No, it will not -- Declude will automatically ignore any E-mail that has
already been sc
>> Would it be possible to change the format to this?
>>
>> COMMENTS comments 5 x 10 0
>> COMMENTS comments 5 weight 10 0
>>
>> Where the number is the minimum needed to fail the test.
>> The second value indicates whether or not the admin wants a cumulative
>> weight.
>> The third and forth
> No, it will not -- Declude will automatically ignore any E-mail that has
> already been scanned.
Does it look at headers and not re-scan or is Declude called in the process
before Imail writes the Q file?
David
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)
> No, it will not -- Declude will automatically ignore any E-mail that has
> already been scanned.
Does it look at headers and not re-scan or is Declude called in the process
before Imail writes the Q file?
Neither, actually. :)
When an E-mail arrives, IMail places it in the spool directory,
> the spool are sent out (using "Send One" in the IMail Administrator),
IMail
> will still call Declude -- but in these cases, Declude sees that IMail is
> processing an E-mail that has already been processed (based on what IMail
> tells Declude), and Declude stops the scan there.
Thanks for the
Darrell,
That is awesome. I get those same requests from our clients
weekly. I appreciate your time in writing it.
Keith
> -Original Message-
> From: Darrell L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Declude
> However, I was looking for features that people would like that I may
> not have thought of at this point.
> Things Still to be added
> 1.) Ability to email the reports
Darrell,
I like your list so far.
Can the email be a small summary and how hard would it be to have a web page
for the detai
That makes sense. So if I just want to HOLD or DELETE it, is there a good
reference document that I can look at which will demonstrate how to use the
weighted system to respond to messages which fail multiple tests?
Philip Butler
Internal Systems Engineer
Region VI ESC
phone 936.435.2503
fax 936.
That makes sense. So if I just want to HOLD or DELETE it, is there a good
reference document that I can look at which will demonstrate how to use the
weighted system to respond to messages which fail multiple tests?
What are you looking to do?
The weighting system works by assigning a "spam w
> CYBERsitter, now known as SpamManager, is being beta tested by a
> number of us with excellent results. It is coming close to being
> released. Some information may be found here, www.spammanager.com.
Hey, SPAManager's my trademark! No fair! :))
-Sandy
Steve,
If I am not mistaken (Scott can correct me), since Declude has already looked
at it once, you can forward this to the intended user and it won't get scanned again
by JunkMail.
Keith
-Original Message-
From: Steve Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark,
I may be off base here, but I am almost positive that spews.org offers
no way of communicating with people. There is no way to contact them.
Regards,
Phillip B. Holmes
Media Resolutions Inc.
Macromedia Alliance Partner
http://www.mediares.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-888-395-4678
972-889-0201
the HOLD command did the trick.
Keith, I didn't understand your suggestion.
If i run declude, and it does a HOLD on a particular msg that turns out to
be legit,
it still requires my intervention. I go in the spam dir, look at the msg,
see it's legit and
dragndrop to the spool dir.
Is there a way
spamreview from slsoft.com
http://www.slsoft.com/spamreview.htm
Donate to the guy. Love the program. Only have one wish and that is
the ability to create filters with wildcards.
Best regards,
Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Family Entertainment Network http
This is what I’m getting in my Declude log:
02/07/2003 02:00:05
Warning: misconfiguration in following line in global.cfg file (ip4r is not an
ACTION)
02/07/2003 02:00:05 DSBL ip4r list.dsbl.org * 6 0
This
34 matches
Mail list logo
