The gateway server will be Imail/Declude
as that will be doing all the Junkmail scanning.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004
Why did this not ROUTETO
07/09/2004 00:15:58 Q462a09e900349a60 Triggered CONTAINS filter SAVFILTER on
X-Bulk: 99 [weight-0; X-Bulk: 99
07/09/2004 00:16:00 Q462a09e900349a60 Triggered IS filter REVDNSFILTER on
localhost [weight-14; localhost].
07/09/2004 00:16:00 Q462a09e900349a60 AHBLDOMAINS:8
Why did this not ROUTETO
...
The test trigered the Contains for the SAVFILTER but SAVFILTER does not show
up in the Tests Failed Section
Well, there is a very clear answer to your question -- Declude JunkMail did
not use the ROUTETO action for the SAVFILTER test because the E-mail did
not fail
Thanks Matt. Here is my info for support tomorrow:
I have Symantec Antivirus Corp 8.1. I have excludes in place for /imail,
/email dirs, and /temp
Declude 1.79i7
Imail 8.05
F-Prot 3.14a
Do you have backup software running on the server? Do you also have
Declude Hijack (in which case there is a
I once tried to set up the same config you have. What I found was that no
matter what exclusions I put in place for SAV 8.1, it would still
occasionally scan those directories. I believe it was due to scheduled
network sweeps, although I have no proof of that. After working with it for
a while,
John,
I think you misunderstood my suggestion. I was suggesting that you run
MS SMTP as well as IMail/JunkMail on the gateway.
Actually, I can tell you that running IMail/JunkMail as the actual
gateway is a pretty bad idea at the moment. You really need some other
product to do the address
After looking at the manual/archives andgetting a little
more confused I've decided to consult the masses.
What would be the easiest way of adding a few points for
emails NOT orgininating from Canada, US, and Mexico?
We have users in all three areas so I'm guessing the
nonenglish won't work
You could use Mailpure's foreign filter. It matches on Countries, HELO, Mailfrom and
REVDNS. The trusted countries are listed at the end of the filter.
Make sure you have the all_list.dat file
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/04 09:52AM
After
I run a backup in the eraly morning hours only so this would not be the
problem as the errors are all day long. I checked and Symantec is not
scanning the spool directory.
I don't have f-prot running on the server other then what declude does with
it and I do not have Declude Hijack.
What about
Hello, Doug,
I would recommend using the COUNTRY/COUNTRIES
functionality in a filter. Here is how I do it...
1. Download the file, http://www.declude.com/release/179/all_list.dat, and place it
in the directory that your GLOBAL.CFG file is in.
2. Add the following...
GLOBAL.CFG
--
Is this guy serious when he says "The test is available for download". What do we
have to download? What version number includes this test? What is
the format of the test? Is it just an IP4R test? What host name do
we use?
- Original Message -
From:
Barry @ CPHZ
To:
OK, I got it now. I will have to think
about that.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004
7:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
At 10:39 AM 7/9/2004, Dan Geiser wrote:
Is this guy serious when he says The test is available for
download. What do we have to download? What version number includes
this test? What is the format of the test? Is it just an IP4R
test? What host name do we use?
I found that kinda strange as
Goto declude.com and you'll see what it is you have to download.
Greg
Dan Geiser wrote:
Is this guy serious when he says The test is available for
download. What do we have to download? What version number includes
this test? What is the format of the test? Is it just an IP4R test?
What
I don't think I have ever had an username and password with
Declude. Where do we find this information?
All we ever had to provide as verification was our
Hostname.
- Original Message -
From:
Dan
Geiser
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:39 AM
Title: Message
I
guess they wrote a "setup" program that will install new code and even activate
it for you. Hopefully, there'll be some "readme" inside that mysterious .EXE
file. Otherwise, it is pretty much a cat in the sack!
The installation process for the MTLDB: Download
Ok, that's where I was getting confused. Didn't have the
countries file, couldn't find it on the site anywhere.
- Original Message -
From:
Dan
Geiser
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:14
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Country
Title: Message
Automatically changing the configuration
files is a bad thing in my opinion.
All my configuration files are built
from scripts from base files, allowing to easily make changes to one section
and then make the appropriate changes in what ever configuration files are
Title: Message
I installed this test, but I'd like to voice my opinion
that I do not like the way this test was distributed. I don't like
anything messing with my global.cfg, even if it is a program distributed by
Declude.
It seemsto me thatthis was an attempt by the
new owners to harvest
Admin server can not be reached...Error 3592. Need any special
ports open or anything?
- Original Message -
From:
Jay
Calvert
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:49
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New
Multiple Threat Lookup Database
I don't think I have ever had an username and password with
Declude. Where do we find this information?
All we ever had to provide as verification was our Hostname.
If you purchased Declude before mid-April 2004, you won't have a
username/password. In this case, you can go to
At 10:49 AM 7/9/2004, Jay Calvert wrote:
I don't think I have ever had an username and password with
Declude. Where do we find this information?
All we ever had to provide as verification was our Hostname.
I never had one either, so I just clicked new user, and it asked me for an
email
Russ Uhte (Lists) wrote:
I found that kinda strange as well, but in blind faith, I did download
and install it. So far it seems to be running very well. Very useful
in conjunction with SA and Sniffer. All that I can tell about it is
that it added a line to my global.cfg. I'm sure Scott or
Title: Message
I agree. We build
our config file from an external interface, and if we have anything added
manually or from another source, it will be overwritten the first time we make
changes through our interface.
Erik
Erik Hjelholt, Managing DirectorAlberni-dot-Net, a div. of
Tandem
Scott,
This is just in regard to the site and not the new test. Could you ask
them to code the page in a way so that it doesn't reload every 10
seconds? I use Netscape 7 and it may be that it's just not friendly
with that browser, but after a few minutes of sitting on the site,
pressing my
OK why then the
07/09/2004 00:15:58 Q462a09e900349a60 Triggered CONTAINS filter SAVFILTER on
X-Bulk: 99 [weight-0; X-Bulk: 99
here are the contents of the sav-smtp.txt that did not work, why?
HEADERS END CONTAINS X-Bulk: 99
HEADERS END CONTAINS X-Bulk: 98
HEADERS END CONTAINS X-Bulk: 97
Allow ICMP packets fixed this for me.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/04 11:08AM
Admin server can not be reached...Error 3592. Need any special ports open or anything?
- Original Message -
From: Jay Calvert
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems to me that this was an attempt by the new owners to harvest
information about Declude users via the signup mechanism.
I believe the reason for requiring the signup information is to help ensure
that customers with up-to-date Service Agreements get to use the test at no
cost, while
I tried that, and it claimed my email address did not exist on their system. I've only
had one email
address the entire time we've done business with Declude.
Keith Purtell, Web/Network Administrator
VantageMed Corporation
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments,
Another question too...
If mailserver changes IP numbers, will I have to re-install to use the test?
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/04 11:12AM
Russ Uhte (Lists) wrote:
I found that kinda strange as well, but in blind faith, I did download
and
Why a 5 MB download for an IP4R test?
I was a bit surprised, too, when I saw that it was a 5.6MB file. :)
Also, I think it would be a very good idea to have a process of opting-out
customers from the data collection (or rather opt-in as that is the
standard that we use for judging spam and
I ran the test few minutes with 0 weight and alert action, so far near all
messages were false positive.
BTW: I don't fully understand the idea behind this test.
---
Franco Celli
---
[Quipo ISP - Questa E-mail e' stata controllata dal programma Declude Virus]
[Quipo ISP - This
I tried that, and it claimed my email address did not exist on their
system. I've only had one email
address the entire time we've done business with Declude.
You need to log on as a new account. The website does not know about
customers from before the new website was put online.
If mailserver changes IP numbers, will I have to re-install to use the test?
Not currently, but that could change.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers
since 2000.
Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus
Maybe all of this has been considered, but I didn't get much from the
E-mail or from the site in this regard.
I did not even get an e-mail about this.
Maybe Scott does not like me, getting back at me for all the intern jokes.
;)
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
Actually, I can tell you that running IMail/JunkMail as the actual
gateway is a pretty bad idea at the moment. You really need some
other product to do the address validation for the recipients on the
gateway and drop the bad stuff before scanning it.
I could likely adapt
OK why then the
07/09/2004 00:15:58 Q462a09e900349a60 Triggered CONTAINS filter SAVFILTER on
X-Bulk: 99 [weight-0; X-Bulk: 99
Because a line in the filter matched. But:
here are the contents of the sav-smtp.txt that did not work, why?
HEADERS END CONTAINS X-Bulk: 99
HEADERS END CONTAINS
Allow ICMP packets fixed this for me.
That's a pretty big issue, IMO. Lots of SOHO routers don't allow you
to pick-and-choose different ICMP traffic types, so if you're blocking
any, you end up blocking all.
Why does this thing need ICMP? I don't know of other LiveReg-type
stuff requiring
BTW: I don't fully understand the idea behind this test.
I agree...can someone explain the rationale behind this test? How effective
will this be at identifying spam?
- Andy
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the
Why does this thing need ICMP? I don't know of other LiveReg-type
stuff requiring access on a port other than the port on which the
registration server _actually_ runs on.
Apparently, it pings the server to make sure that it is reachable, and if
the ping doesn't come back, it is assumed
Let me clarify to fix the 3592 during install, I had to stop blocking the ICMP
protocol on my router.
After the install, I was able to resume blocking the ICMP protocol.
It looks like the install program attempts to ping home to see if the admin server is
available.
Not as ideal as I would like
-Scott
Can you clarify the END for me?
Would this fail the test if the e-mail came with a revdns of us.info?
revdns 10 contains info
revdns end contains info
mailfrom 10 contains info
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/04 11:44AM
OK why then
Scott,
Thanks for the answers. I just wanted to add my comments to two very
important things.
Is there also an exclusion for ECAIR viruses and more importantly, is
there an exclusion for things like macro viruses that will get sent
from legitimate servers?
We will certainly be looking at
What, is Sandy reading my mind? You beat me to it. First, I needed to find
out what DB the main server is using.
Most domains are external with some using the registry.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW: I don't fully understand the idea behind this test.
I agree...can someone explain the rationale behind this test? How effective
will this be at identifying spam?
The idea is that people are reporting 60% to 85% of spam coming from
zombies -- IP addresses that have trojan horses installed
Can you clarify the END for me?
It ends the processing of the filter.
Would this fail the test if the e-mail came with a revdns of us.info?
revdns 10 contains info
revdns end contains info
mailfrom 10 contains info
In this case, the E-mail would fail the test (the first line fails the
test; the
We block all incoming and outgoing icmp traffic. A live reg should check at
80 or 443 because that typical allowable outbound traffic in my opinion.
- Original Message -
From: Sanford Whiteman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:47 AM
Sandy,
If I could pump in any list of address (not just locally hosted), and
also wildcard domains, and do it fully within IMail, I would definitely
be interested. I've been chasing the ORF route, but despite it's
leanness, it still has to handle the message with a separate process
and that
Hi Scott:
The IPs that we list are those that were sending viruses
in the past; therefore, they will likely be sending spam in the future.
I wonder, whether most corporate PCs (with identifiable, fix IP addresses)
are more likely to be protected behind firewalls or mail servers with virus
Hi Scott:
Considering that most administrators will block ANY TCP/IP traffic from/to a
server and only open exactly those 2 or 3 ports that are needed for its
primary function, you can assume that trying to ping will not be permitted
- thus preventing install.
Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to
[Responding to two posts]
So - if some dial-up/dynamic PC gets infected, that IP address will likely
be assigned to someone else who happens to connect tomorrow? Is your test
eliminating any dial-up/dynamic IPs, since by definition the infected/spam
workstation will change IPs?
But, by
I get it now. But, is there anyway to fail the test and end the test in one
line instead of two.
For example the way I under stand now it is if you want to short circut a
test you would use END, but this would not fail the test to if you want the
test to fail you would have to do something like
a good admin will allow ICMP traffic through, *unless* they believe it to
be a specific security risk
Sorry, disagree there. A *good* admin will recognize that ICMP *IS* a
security risk. It allows remote computers to build a map of your network
and find out what IP addresses are valid. While
Please take this as being constructive.
I'm not out to prove a point with spam blocking, I'm out to just simply
block spam and deliver good E-mail. When some idiot blasts legitimate
mail from DUL space, the problem becomes mine to solve, and my customers
expect for me to solve it, period.
Dan, while you make a good point, there is a balance to everything.
A couple of years ago I attended a MS security seminar in Irvine. They
brought up a very good point Security is like a triangle. The three points
are cost, function and safety. The point inside the triangle where your
security
Kevin,
Think about using "MAXWEIGHT 10" in the beginning of the file. This
will end the test immediately when a score of 10 is reached. This can
be an effective incremental method of saving processing power. It can
also be redefined so you can have groupings of filter lines at weight
10,
Ah, but you DO recognize that ICMP is a threat, and so you have set
access-rules on it. That was my main point. And as Sandy pointed out,
there are many firewalls out there that do NOT allow you to set access-rules
other than allow ICMP globally or disallow ICMP globally. For an admin that
must
M Why a 5 MB download for an IP4R test?
Yea, I don't get this. Does this harvest virus IPs from our system and
report them back to Declude?
--
Best regards,
Davidmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
OK
that makes sence. I will try it. thanks Matt
Kevin
Bilbee
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
MattSent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:33 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test
Action FailureKevin,Think
That said, I do appreciate the effort here with this test, and as with
anything it will evolve and become stronger and more accurate, but I
just hope that you don't limit yourself from doing the right thing just
because of a real-world condition that doesn't make sense to you.
I am going to
A small problem I see with this is a new test that I do not want to add
weight to.
So I just did a MAXWEIGHT 1 and made each line a weight of 1.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:33 AM
To:
At 01:38 PM 7/9/2004, Dan Horne wrote:
Ah, but you DO recognize that ICMP is a threat, and so you have set
access-rules on it. That was my main point. And as Sandy pointed out,
Obviously ICMP _CAN_ be a security risk, but so is having your network
connected to the Internet. I know a lot of
Kevin,
You can accomodate for that by giving it a negative weight in your
Global.cfg. The total weight is a combination of the two and the
Global.cfg score won't be assessed without a positive hit on a filter
line (END statements don't count).
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
A small problem I see
M Why a 5 MB download for an IP4R test?
Yea, I don't get this. Does this harvest virus IPs from our system and
report them back to Declude?
No.
A beta version of Declude Virus released about 6 months ago added a new
feature to automatically detect forging viruses. It does this by sending a
DNS
Scott, did you create this test, or is it otherwise your idea?
I helped come up with the original idea. However, most of the design and
development work was done by others, with occasional input from me.
Scott, are you in control of features and changes to declude.exe, or are
others now
Scott, are you in control of features and changes to declude.exe, or are
others now influencing your decisions?
The owners of the company make the final decisions. However, I can say
that for the time being at least, no changes will be made to the
declude.exe code without my knowledge
So you are saying in the global.cfg to give the test a -1 and set MAXWEIGHT
0 in the filter file???
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
The owners of the company make the final decisions. However, I can say
that for the time being at least, no changes will be made to the
declude.exe code without my knowledge (there could potentially be changes I
don't agree with, but at least I'll know if that does happen).
But what about
I think you'd want to give the test a -1 in the global.cfg, with a MAXWEIGHT 1 within
the filter.
So you'd net a 0 then.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/04 02:21PM
So you are saying in the global.cfg to give the test a -1 and set MAXWEIGHT
0 in the
In your Global.cfg give it a -1. In your filter file, set the
MAXWEIGHT to 1 and score each line of the filter as 1 as well. One hit
will end the filter with a score of 1 and then the -1 from the
Global.cfg will be added to that for a total of 0.
If you set MAXWEIGHT to 0, the filter will
So this would explain why there hasn't been a new alpha declude.exe for over a month.
If my declude.exe doesn't get refreshed monthly, it starts to spoil!
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/04 02:19PM
The owners of the company make the final
I was taking the optimistic interpretation that a big new release was around the
corner.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/09/04 02:31PM
Sounds like new features are going to be slow going from this point???
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
Sounds like new features are going to be slow going from this point???
Until the next release, most likely. But after that, it should be back to
the usual rate. :)
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail
I recommend in the future to just tell us what line to add.
A 5mb download seems overkill for this.
Cris Porter
JVC America
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
if you block ICMP, you break IP. That's the bottom line, and nobody can
argue that.
Sorry, but I can and will argue with that. ICMP relies on IP, not the other
way around. IP works with or without ICMP. RFC792, which defines ICMP,
states The purpose of these control messages is to provide
At 03:03 PM 7/9/2004, Dan Horne wrote:
if you block ICMP, you break IP. That's the bottom line, and nobody can
argue that.
Sorry, but I can and will argue with that. ICMP relies on IP, not the other
way around. IP works with or without ICMP. RFC792, which defines ICMP,
states The purpose of
Hello All,
We implemented SPF a few weeks ago and I just went thru the logs of the past
couple of weeks and noticed there is nothing in any logs showing this test.
I also just implemented the new MTLDB test and the same issue, never see a
WARN in the logs and I have them set to WARN if failed. I
Ah, but ICMP does still work on your machine. You can still ping
internally. It's just that those machines outside your firewall can't REACH
your machine with ICMP. There is nothing in the RFC that even implies that
I must allow all ICMP packets to reach my network.
Even if you're using a
Actually Russ, ICMP still works. Can you ping 127.0.0.1, the local loop
back? Can you ping other items on your local network?
It comes down intranet vs internet separated by a firewall. Many
corporations kill ICMP externally, but it works fine
internally and is used as intended OR they allow
Hello all,
The test seems to be stable on our system.
However, I looked around and there are a couple of DLLs installed on
C:\ProgramFiles\ComputerHorizons\MTLDB. One seems to indicate that it is
cyphering or creating/using a secure token of some purpose.
In scanning the regisrty, I also notice
Hi Scott:
As a rule of thumb, when people ask me for assistance regarding troubles
reaching a computer and I can't ping it, I tell them that it can't be
pinged, and they have to take care of it from there. If you disable a vital
networking tool, you need to accept the consequences.
That's
Scott,
We know the Computer Horizons was sold, how much control do you have over
Declude these days?
One of the best things I liked about Declude was your constant collaboration
on IMail and this group. How often do we see and IMail developer in the
IMail forum.
Do have any say as to what is
At 03:45 PM 7/9/2004, Doug Anderson wrote:
Actually Russ, ICMP still works. Can you ping 127.0.0.1, the local loop
back? Can you ping other items on your local network?
It comes down intranet vs internet separated by a firewall. Many
corporations kill ICMP externally, but it works fine
internally
At 03:59 PM 7/9/2004, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Scott:
As a rule of thumb, when people ask me for assistance regarding troubles
reaching a computer and I can't ping it, I tell them that it can't be
pinged, and they have to take care of it from there. If you disable a vital
networking tool, you need
I couldn't agree more with Matt. It's annoying as all heck.
-M
- Original Message -
From: Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup Database test
for Declude JunkMail
Scott,
This is just in regard
one case that comes to mind is PMTU. I've seen first
hand instances where a corporation blocked all ICMP traffic, and then some
of my users couldn't access that companies website. For whatever reason,
the remote web server had a smaller than normal MTU size
Yes - ICMP should be blocked
You've never had to request additional IP blocks from an upstream
provider
have you??
Do that occasionally - the last time in May.
I fill out the form, and voila, half a day later Quest assigns another
C-class for my T3s.
(We are multi-vendor redundant, but I don't recall right now, if I
At 04:44 PM 7/9/2004, Andy Schmidt wrote:
one case that comes to mind is PMTU. I've seen first
hand instances where a corporation blocked all ICMP traffic, and then some
of my users couldn't access that companies website. For whatever reason,
the remote web server had a smaller than normal MTU
At 04:49 PM 7/9/2004, Andy Schmidt wrote:
You've never had to request additional IP blocks from an upstream
provider
have you??
Do that occasionally - the last time in May.
I fill out the form, and voila, half a day later Quest assigns another
C-class for my T3s.
Boy, that would be nice. ATT's
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I recommend in the future to just tell us what line to add.
So do I. :) But management won this one.
A 5mb download seems overkill for this.
Agreed. I didn't even know until today that the install program was going
to
It appears from posts over others there are some dlls involved.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:33 PM
To: [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It appears from posts over others there are some dlls involved.
Ah, okay, I will download then. Thanks!
Bill
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came
Nope it is just a line in the conifig it is an ip4r test and the only thing
it does it add a line to the global.cfg after of course getting your
information and making you sign up for the website.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup
Database test for Declude JunkMail
Nope it is just a line in the conifig it is an ip4r test and the
We know the Computer Horizons was sold, how much control do you have over
Declude these days?
That depends on how you define control (no, I'm not a politician!).
In this case, the level of control isn't clearly defined. The transition
of management can be tricky, and needs to be handled
I also looked in the Control Panel Add/Remove Programs and there is no entry
for the MTLDB program that was installed.
I looked for an uninstall method and couldn't find anything.
Did I miss something or is it my imagination that the MTLDB test code or
registry entries must be manually removed?
Put another way, while the new owners do some things differently than I
would have (as is always the case with a transition in management), I
haven't seen them do anything that I would really disapprove of. If I
did,
though, I am sure that they would listen to me and give serious thought to
I see the folder on my test system where I installed the MTLDB test. I then
moved the global.cfg line to my production server and I am getting log
entries so I beleive it is running. I have it at a weight of 0 for now.
I did not run the install on my production system.
Kevin Bilbee
Well, I think this new test is maybe testing the waters, as so far, even
though I like the idea, I do not like the implementation of this test, and
have not yet done it on my server, nor on the other Imail/Declude servers I
consult/maintain on. The reports so far from those that have implemented
I have a message more for management more than Scott (and I hope they
are listening!):
Don't fix what aint broken!
Declude has a solid following because of the way that Scott has treated
IMail users in the past with feature upgrades, release methods and great
support. If the new management is
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
