serge wrote:
thanks matt
let me see if i finally understand
this
To and CC are in the headers but not
BCC
the recepient can be either in To,
CC, or BCC, and therefore may nit be in the header
when you say address used in smtp
connection, you mean the recepient address,
No. You can't have multiple actions per test -- to do what
you want, you
would need to create a new test, such as WEIGHT10A, that is
identical to
the WEIGHT10 test (except fort the name). Then you could have:
WEIGHT10SUBJECT [Spam]
WEIGHT10AHEADER [This E-mail is
Complete Received: headers below:
Received: from smtp.fidnet.com [216.229.64.74] by mail.csimo.com
(SMTPD32-8.12) id AD2B20D0070; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:10:03 -0500
This shows that IMail received the E-mail from 216.229.64.74, so:
X-Declude-Sender: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you Matt
BTW, installed size.vbs and it is working
great
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Copy
To
serge wrote:
thanks matt
let me see if i
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/22/HNmicrosoftid_1.html
---
[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 PROTECTED], and
type unsubscribe
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/22/HNmicrosoftid_1.html
Does anyone know where to get a copy of the proposed standard?
Does that standard help nail down the specifications for the SPF
part? If I'm publishing an SPF record now, will that need to
change to meet the new standard?
- Original Message -
From: Brad Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/22/HNmicrosoftid_1.html
Does anyone know where to get a copy of the proposed standard?
Does that standard help nail down the specifications for the SPF
part? If I'm publishing an
FYI:
The 179i16 interim does include support for the NOTIS filter type.
From my log:
Triggered REVDNS NOTIS filter TESTNOTIS
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the
- Original Message -
From: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The 179i16 interim does include support for the NOTIS filter type.
Wow, we are up to 1.79i16 already? What's changed since 1.79i8?
Bill
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:18 PM
Unless the database gets cleaned up, I don't see this as a useable test.
We're working on that. There will be a major change to the listings
within
the next week.
Scott, has this
Other than NOTIS,
I saw this posting:
With the latest interim (http://www.declude.com/version/interim), you
can add a line SKIPIFEXT EZIP to the bannotify.eml file.
That's kind of why I posted to see if we could come up with some changes.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
FYI, SKIPIFEXT works with the following:
- Any BANEXT extension
- Any BANNAME file name
- EZIP-[extension] (best option IMO because you can achieve a
higher level of detail)
These entries must go in the top of your BanNotify.eml file. If you
aren't using 1.79i16 or higher, adding these
Weird posting to yourself but figured it may be good for the archives for
anyone in the same boat. I never did get a response from anyone on the list
and frankly knew was asking a lot for folks to digest on a busy Monday
morning. Anyway, I got all the SPF set-up and the wizard figured out for our
Unless the database gets cleaned up, I don't see this as a useable test.
We're working on that. There will be a major change to the listings within
the next week.
Scott, has this happened yet?
No. There's an issue with the SQL database that is storing the
information, where it can't update
14 matches
Mail list logo
