Checking the bad header code on this returns a unknown reason. Does someone
know the reason for BADHEADERS and ROUTING?
Declude version 1.70i14 beta.
Received: from srv1.eservicesforyou.net [67.94.227.35] by
mail.eservicesforyou.net
(SMTPD32-8.00) id A5BE14B01AC; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:31:42
I just had to share the following. Look at the name given for the
sender.
Thanks,
Chuck Frolick
ArgoNet, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Annoying!! [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 1:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PopUps - BeGone!!
**Subscriber details for
Is there anyway I can point a domain specific junkmail rule to cull
messages to a folder other than the root spam folder in the spool?
No, but we are planning to make the hold directory configurable in a future
release.
-Scott
---
Declude
Checking the bad header code on this returns a unknown reason. Does someone
know the reason for BADHEADERS and ROUTING?
Received: from srv1.eservicesforyou.net [67.94.227.35] by
mail.eservicesforyou.net
(SMTPD32-8.00) id A5BE14B01AC; Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:31:42 -0700
Received: from
Feature request for a filter test option like so:
SUBJECT 5 IS ALLSMALL
To catch subject lines that are in all small letters.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude
SUBJECT 5 IS ALLSMALL
To catch subject lines that are in all small letters.
Has you found an universal characteristic for this?
We have found enough examples of subject-lines in both all small or all
upper case that wasn't spam.
Markus
---
[This E-mail was scanned for
Does anyone know of any problems or things that I
should look out for before I put my Imail/Declude box behind a Watchguard
firewall.
I know that at one point there was a problem with
SMTP Auth when used with the Watchguard firewalls SMTP proxy, but I believe that
the problem has been
Are they by chance running a AV SMTP gateway product on Exchange that could
be misconfigured?
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Has you found an universal characteristic for this?
We have found enough examples of subject-lines in both all small or all
upper case that wasn't spam.
Not universal, I was thinking of adding just a small weight to it, like 3 or
so.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For
This one failed the ROUTING test because it was sent from the U.S. to a
mailserver in Brazil, back to a mailserver in the U.S.
The E-mail failed the BADHEADERS test because it was sent from a mail
client that is not Y2K compliant (it is specifying that the E-mail was
sent
in 1903, before
Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference to it in my
logs now (set to mid) or headers.
---
[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
Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference to it in my
logs now (set to mid) or headers.
It still seems to be working fine from here (see
http://www.declude.com/spamtrap.htm ).
Could you post the longer line that begins with SPAMCOP from your
\IMail\Declude\global.cfg file?
Was just curious if anyone else is seeing the HUGE increase we've seen.
I hate to be paranoid, but it seems to coincide with the introduction
of the government's do not call list. I've heard of threats by
telemarketing companies to begin sending out huge amounts of junk email
and snail mail.
Good call, Scott. I don't think any of these tests are showing up right
now. I'm going to bump up the logging and take a better look.
OSSRC ip4rrelays.osirusoft.com127.0.0.4
16 0
SPAMCOP ip4rbl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2
16 0
JAPAN
More info:
Debug gives me these lines:
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 1-SPAMCOP didn't get a
response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 2-JAPAN didn't get a
response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 3-MONKEYFORMMAIL didn't get a
response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54
Good call, Scott. I don't think any of these tests are showing up right
now. I'm going to bump up the logging and take a better look.
If none of them are showing up, did you make any major changes recently
(such as adding a gateway in front of your IMail server)? I'm guessing
that Declude
Debug gives me these lines:
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 1-SPAMCOP didn't get a response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 2-JAPAN didn't get a response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 3-MONKEYFORMMAIL didn't get a
response.
07/07/2003 13:10:54
I have already looked at the archives and have found referenced but with no
specifics.
I am having quite an interesting email conversation with an admin in
Austrailla. He claims that he is in compliance with the RFC's and does not
want to add a reverse for his firewall which is communicating for
I have already looked at the archives and have found referenced but with no
specifics.
I am having quite an interesting email conversation with an admin in
Austrailla. He claims that he is in compliance with the RFC's and does not
want to add a reverse for his firewall which is communicating for
We're using our internet provider's DNS server. It seems to work, but I don't know
how to test it for the types of queries declude uses.
nslookup works fine.
--
David FletcherInfoTech International, LLC.
(904)338-9234 (904)721-1253 fax
http://www.ITI-InfoTech.com
Any event, once it
We're using our internet provider's DNS server. It seems to work, but I
don't know how to test it for the types of queries declude uses.
nslookup works fine.
Does nslookup work fine using the DNS servers listed in the OS, or are you
using set server=192.0.2.53 (entering the IP of the first
It's
making some sense to me now. However, I need a little more help understanding
the following example in the headers of a failed message:
X-Alligate-In: FAILED - Score Adult: 9 (Req: 18) Spam:
44 (Req: 18) Tot: 53 (Req: 25)X-Alligate-Tracking:
A72AF5B79114391EX-Alligate-Signature:
The Alligate test applied 30 points to the total
message weight, 20 points for failing AlligateSpam1 and 10 points for failing
AlligateSpam2. The weight that Alligate returns to Declude is how Declude
determines what Alligate tests, if any, were failed and what weight to apply to
failed
Hello, Todd,
The short answer to this question is I have per domain hold weights
ranging from as low as 5 and as high as 13.
The long answer is as follows...
We have around 100 E-Mail Sites on our IMail Server. We are using per
domain filtering and have currently set up DJM Pro for 5 sites.
Ah! Now I believe I understand everything. So the
less-than-minus-17 ( -17 ) is a double-negative which means the same as
more-than-plus-17 in Declude, andif the Alligate exit codeis -18 it
gets a weight of 20 if so configured in the Global.cfg as
below,correct?
You got it. Sort of. Its the new
math. Hey, it works.
;-)
John
Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices
For You
626-737-6003
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.eservicesforyou.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Yes. ;-))
Hello Sandy.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Whiteman
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:51 PM
To: John
I have recently turned off one of my former core domains. My objective
was to return a detailed message to each sender that the domain was no
longer valid and to collect all the messages that were being sent, but
not deliver them to their intended recipients.
I have achieved this by using the
28 matches
Mail list logo
