This will be fixed in the next release. Specifically, this will happen
if the string you are comparing against ((timeout) in this case) is
shorter than the search string (.mailpure.com). So given the details
of the issue, a broader workaround might be an extra line REVDNS END
NOTENDSWITH
Now that we've had two people wanting END to End with weight, can I suggest
a STOP action that would STOP processing with the current weight?
Essentially this would make the STOP action similar to what END was before
the last released interim.
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry
Hello, All,
I'm having an issue with Declude ignoring a test
and I can't seem to figure out where my configuration problem lies so I thought
I'd send it to the list for some additional troubleshooting.
Our mail system received the following message
Friday Night...
Received: from
and the following entry in JunkMail.08.FromFile.Other.txt...
-COM@
The fromfile test type only looks at E-mail addresses and domains; you
can't enter a username or partial username. For that, you would need to
use a filter.
-Scott
---
Declude
Title: Message
Hi,
Does Declude
correctly interprete the SPF records published by
Hotmail/MSN?
E.g., currently we
publish something like this...
v=spf1 mx ip4:216.124.168.0/28include:webhost.hm-software.com
-all
but the new format
would look like that:
spf2.0/pra mx
Title: Message
I've been catching up on some archive reading, and came across
this.I've recently needed to apply different filters to different
domains.And I read this: Create a folder for that
domain. In the folder, have a $default$.junkmail file, but leave
it blank. John Tolmachoff
Does this mean that what tests are not listed in the $default$.junkmail file
are then not going to get used and therefore, no weight will be applied from
that test?
The weight for any tests that you define will apply to all
users/domains. So if you create a test for a specific domain, you would
Does Declude correctly interprete the SPF records published by Hotmail/MSN?
E.g., currently we publish something like this...
v=spf1 mx ip4:216.124.168.0/28 include:webhost.hm-software.com -all
but the new format would look like that:
spf2.0/pra mx ip4:216.124.168.0/28
Message- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt
I have been contacted by several clients who want SenderID
information added to their DNS. If that's representative, then the
adoption rate should skyrocket next month, and I sure would
like to benefit from it! If do have a maintenance
Hi Scott:
I wonder if others on this list have seen inquiries from their hosting
customers indicating that there will be some good number of domains who will
support it.
Besides I have seen Declude jump on some pretty irrelevant proposals in
the last year. Compared to that SenderID will be
Putting my two cents in ...
I also would rather have both options. I would choose the keywords:
ABORT (same as END, and deprecate use of END as a keyword)
STOP (end processing with the accumulated weight, and the test status
status as having triggered, as requested by Matthew Bramble
Good luck trying to rally support around this one. If the open source
community is not going to support it, and none of Microsoft's competitors
(Yahoo, AOL, GMail, etc.), then what makes you think that other ISPs and
companies are going to rally around SenderID, especially when their are
other
- Original Message -
Correct. But there are also the patent issues, and the muckiness of it
all (I'm having troubles even finding an official Microsoft document that
documents this new Sender-ID).
Here you go:
Sender ID (Published: June 23, 2004 | Updated: July 12, 2004)
Hi Scott:
But how are they hearing about the Sender-ID records in the first
place? Virtually everything points to real SPF.
Apparently, Microsoft has been promoting SenderID to email mailing houses
(see: http://www.exacttarget.com/) and to their network of Microsoft
Partners, who in turn are
Hi Bill,
Again, my opinion is not what matters. I understand your arguments.
I can only go by what my clients do and the trend that I see develop. Two
large domains will implement it, apparently other large organizations will
add SPF2.0 TXT records just in case. After all, it does no harm - so
Bill,
I'm well aware of the disputes. But my level of knowledge doesn't make a
difference. I'd like to check other people's SPF2 records, no matter how I
feel about the whole issue.
This is not the time for my personal preference to override what's clearly
best for my mail server. If others
Correct. But there are also the patent issues, and the muckiness of it
all (I'm having troubles even finding an official Microsoft document that
documents this new Sender-ID).
Scott, have you looked at this
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx
It seems to have what
Correct. But there are also the patent issues, and the muckiness of it
all (I'm having troubles even finding an official Microsoft document that
documents this new Sender-ID).
Scott, have you looked at this
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx
It seems to have
Hello Markus,
Saturday, September 18, 2004, 1:49:12 AM, you wrote:
MG As I know you can specify a list of (max 100 ?) IPBYPASS entries. Only
MG IP-Adresesses, no CIDR-Ranges.
MG You can also set HOPHIGH to 1 or 2 so that not only the connecting IP but
MG also the previuos 1 or 2 will be compared
Bill, I think the matter of the licensing and potential patent problems with
SPF are limiting factors only for the Open Source movement's software
development, as it affects developers, not implementors. As we see with the
Apache Software Foundations' letter to the MARID group, they won't put
Could help notice Microsoft states The Sender ID Framework is an
industry standard.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx
Michael Jaworski
Puget Sound Network, Inc.
(206) 217-0400
(800) 599-9485
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
I wanted to
make sure that WHITELISTIP only whitelisted the client connecting to
Imail and not any other IP in the headers since they could contain the
same internal IP as in my range.
That is correct -- WHITELISTIP will only check the IP address of the remote
computer (in your case, the one
I believe that it was Kami who had his \declude folder exposed via FTP so
you could pull his tests.
Anyone remember the URL and is this still online?
Thanks!
Mark
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the
Andy, Microsoft certainly is an important player.
I just wish that they would stick to the standards that everyone else does.
In order to get mail to them in an orderly fashion, I need to use a static
copy of their DNS record in the DNS server on my mailserver, that I've
cooked to know only about
Monday, September 20, 2004, 3:08:56 PM, you wrote:
RSP That is correct -- WHITELISTIP will only check the IP address of the remote
RSP computer (in your case, the one that connected to the IMGate server). If
RSP you scan subsequent hops, and the IP appears later, it will not be whitelisted.
Kevin, I suspect that you're right, and that 99.9% of the time, your rule
would hold true.
I would suggest that the IP address in the HELO would have to match the
reverse DNS exactly, though.
I also think that it this observation would also hold true if the HELO is an
IP address and there is no
RSP That is correct -- WHITELISTIP will only check the IP address of the
remote
RSP computer (in your case, the one that connected to the IMGate server). If
RSP you scan subsequent hops, and the IP appears later, it will not be
whitelisted.
So...just to confirm. To keep my internal clients
ftp.xyz.com/imail where xyz.com is Kami's domain
- Original Message -
From: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Online FTP site with Declude Files...
I believe that it was Kami who had his \declude
I would say that 99.9% is probably accurate here, and while that's
pretty good, it might cause more issues than benefit depending on your
system if you added extra weight for this condition. There is
unfortunately software out there, or at least configurations that will
insert IP's into the
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
This is because they publish MX records for hosts that are up, but not
accepting mail. IMail then thinks it's a great idea to try to send to that
host 10 minutes later. And again. And again.
I believe if you turn off DNS Caching and Failed Domain Skipping in the
Queue
99.9% is good enough and better than most RBLs especially in a weighted
system. I have modified my code and am going to test for a few days using
the ROUTETO action to inspect te emails for false positives.
If I find the test acceptable I will post a new version of contains IP with
documentation.
We've seen some legitimate mailers with an IP for the HELO, which matches
the reverse DNS. I certainly wouldn't recommend holding, much less
deleting, on any one test.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Bilbee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20,
Agreed I would never delete on the one test, (except my personal black
list), I would weight the email. A reverse DNS endty should never return an
ip address. If the HELO is an ip it should should be in the form of
[a.b.c.d] from my understanding. But if I reverse a.b.c.d I should not get
a.b.c.d
Ok... So what's Kami's domain?
You can email me privately.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Geiser
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 3:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Online FTP site with
Hi everyone,
I wrote a program we have been using at my company
successfully for a while now. They are two visual basic executables
a whitelister and a blacklister. To add a new whitelisted user to a whitelist
file, one must simply set up a program alias and send an e-mail with an
I would be very interested in these
programs. Right now we do all this manually, it would be cool to have an
automatic way. Can they run on a per domain setup, or just configured for a
single domain?
Thanks.
Matt
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Would love to have a look at it. Thanks for the offer.
Keith
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matt Goodhue
Sent: Mon 9/20/2004 8:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Whitelister /
Gotcha... just after I mentioned it I saw a couple of industry newsletters
that had an IP address for HELO. They're obviously poor mailers, but our
customers want to see them, so we must oblige. A, to be able to be
stricter... wouldn't that be the life...grin.
Darin.
- Original
Besides you can do whatever you want with the test here are the definitions
These are my global config test names and return values
CIP-WellFormed 10
CIP-OnlyIp 11
CIP-FullMatch 12
CIP-LeadingTextMatch 13
CIP-TrailingTextMatch 14
CIP-RDNSMatchWellFormed 20
CIP-RDNSMatchOnlyIp 21
39 matches
Mail list logo
