Some one's e-mail client keeps changing/fixing/correcting/whatever the
subject line and making it longer and longer.
Please fix it.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail
Scott, since my own server only gets about 4000 messages per day, is there
any testing or logging I can do that will help track this down?
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL
This issue has really gotten my attention since one of the 0.1% of messages
not scanned happened to have a virus attachment and caused a bit of ruckus
with the client got it and demanded to know why he is paying me money to
scan messages and then a virus got through. (Fortunately, I am adamant at
When Hijack releases a message from HOLD1, does it go right back to spool,
or does it then get scanned for Virus and JunkMail?
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came
One more thing, is there a way (Bill) of (1st) comparing the c:\declude.log
for unique IDs to say the virus log for unique ID and (2nd) list those found
in declude.log but not in the virus log? Then we could take those and find
all the log lines for those and see if they are were delivered by
IPBYPASS is great except for the 20 entry limitation. ATT, where many of my
clients and myself have mailboxes that forward to my IMail server has 23
mail forwarders. Then add in the secondary MX's, etc. and I have to use
multiple hops.
BTW, how do you intend to do selective use of multiple hop
John,
This is probably more than you wanted but I didn't want to post Scott's
explanation out of context.
I had a HiJack / Junkmail situation in August. This related to mail where I
am the secondary MX. HiJack was doing a very effective job of trapping
volume SPAM but I noticed that SPAM was
Scott, since my own server only gets about 4000 messages per day, is there
any testing or logging I can do that will help track this down?
We've already tracked it down about as far as it can go. IMail's process
that handles the queue run is processing E-mails between the time that they
are
Is it possibble to set an iprange in IFBYPASS ?
So that all 128 ips are set there ? Instead og using all the entrys for this ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Kulman
Sent: 6. desember 2003 09:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just installed dlanalyzer
when looking at results, i'am trying to figure what tests to keep, and what
tests to drop
curently using more than 50 test
i get about 15K message a day, and have double P4 machine, so plenty of cpu
left
looking at logs of last week, at what threshold do you thing a test
We've already tracked it down about as far as it can go. IMail's process
that handles the queue run is processing E-mails between the time that
they are saved to the hard drive (or unlocked) by the SMTPD process and
the time that Declude is able to re-lock the files.
We are trying to think
My understanding is that CIDR ranges are not supported by IPBYPASS and I
wouldn't want the whole Class C, just the part I need.
I'm going to start a new thread on the IPBYPASS situation.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
ISPHuset
Scott,
There was a thread started the other day regarding the limitation of 20
IPBYPASS entries. I mentioned in a separate thread that I require 23 for
ATT forwarders plus my secondary MX's and a couple of other forwarders used
by my clients.
Can you increase the number of entries to a more
In the mean time, until Ipswitch fixes this, is it safe to assume that the chance
incident of failure can be reduced by some percentage by utilizing a monstrously
overrated processor for a given volume of mail? -- Processor power up, chance of
failure down, perhaps dramatically?
Scott, I take it you are passing this information on to them? Or do you want
me to forward to them under the incident I have open?
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
There was a thread started the other day regarding the limitation of 20
IPBYPASS entries. I mentioned in a separate thread that I require 23 for
ATT forwarders plus my secondary MX's and a couple of other forwarders used
by my clients.
Can you increase the number of entries to a more realistic
In the mean time, until Ipswitch fixes this, is it safe to assume that the
chance incident of failure can be reduced by some percentage by utilizing
a monstrously overrated processor for a given volume of
mail? -- Processor power up, chance of failure down, perhaps dramatically?
Yes.
The
Scott, I take it you are passing this information on to them? Or do you want
me to forward to them under the incident I have open?
Anyone who is having this problem is welcome to forward the information to
Ipswitch. Ipswitch doesn't have an official line of communication with
developers, and
One more note:
This is the last report from our server:
LocalDeliver1119
RemoteDeliver493
We get about 5+ of these emails a day that is not caught.
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent:
Scott ..
I am not sure about this..
Our server load is quite small... Maximum 2000 emails a day.
Our server is a Compaq quad 550 MHz and about 1.2 GB or RAM.
One just can't expect to need more power for such a small volume of email?
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
I am not sure about this..
Our server load is quite small... Maximum 2000 emails a day.
Our server is a Compaq quad 550 MHz and about 1.2 GB or RAM.
One just can't expect to need more power for such a small volume of email?
I'm not saying that you should increase the CPU power of the server --
Serge,
I know exactly what you mean. Looking below its obvious that ORDB catches
very little. Is it worth doing a DNS request over 864K times for it to just
catch 7K peices of mail.
One thing I do know is that I am goign to miss the Easynet tests...
Darrell
DLAnalyzer(v2.0R) Report
Although this is not the same issue as Declude not getting called, I did want to bring
it to everyones attention. For those of you that Store and Forward to other email
servers, Imail 8.04 is having issues with removing body text from emails on the smtp
rdeliver action to a remote server. I
64.119.209.70
64.119.210.70
64.119.222.157
64.119.194.100
64.119.210.70
64.119.217.134
64.119.222.156
64.119.222.157
Out of about 40 held messages this morning these IP's were in about 10
of them. I'm going to add the following to a weighted (10) IP file
Keith,
Thanks. I hadn't seen it but I'll be on the lookout now.
George
-Original Message-
From: Keith Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Keith Johnson
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude not taking action
Marc
Don't forget 64.119.208.0/24
George
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Catuogno
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] High % of spam from this IP range:
John, yes, this can be done. But, if you are running the latest beta,
nothing will be written to the declude.log file. However, if you are still
running one of the latest pre-beta interim releases, and still want to track
this, let me know and I will send you a script.
Bill
- Original
If it will help Ipswitch decide to fix it...
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 12:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We're still running 7.07 here. We're not seeing any of the problems you're
referring to in this version, so I think the bugs very likely started in the
next major release 7.10, which had problems on our server.
This is getting scary. It looks like there is a serious bug
in IMail v7
and v8
I did some math related to my machine assuming 1/5 of a second window
for this bug to appear, and on 5,000 E-mails a day, and 24 runs of the
queue. I figured that on average, this would only happen once every 360
days. It's actually quite remarkable that this was caught, and I can
see why
30 matches
Mail list logo
