[Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.57 released

2004-11-03 Thread Sanford Whiteman
All, Yet another update to SPAMC32 that's useful when deployed as a Declude 'weight' test type. See the release notes below and download from the traditional /release folder. --Sandy -- SPAMC32 Release 0.5.57 11/3/2004 * Release notes for

Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.56 released

2004-11-03 Thread Sanford Whiteman
> Question - with your new 'e' switch - can the weight returned be > capped eg a max return value? Nope, not as currently implemented. You can use multiple sets of -lt and -ht switches to create similar behavior, possibly including negative weights and TESTSFAILED filters to strike a b

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] subjectchars

2004-11-03 Thread R. Scott Perry
I've verified what you found, and I'm enclosing a sample GMail with complete header (not mangled through a mail client). What I think Declude is doing is finding the text "subject:" in the domain keys header, instead of the the subject: line that follows a newline sequence. That is correct. There

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH

2004-11-03 Thread Michael Graveen
Oh, OK. I didn't understand at first. Thanks for the clarification. I will install the latest version of Declude. Thanks, Mike At 05:13 PM 11/3/2004, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Michael Graveen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Scott, > What does the line "Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH"

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH

2004-11-03 Thread Bill Landry
- Original Message - From: "Michael Graveen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Scott, > What does the line "Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH"? > I thought WHITELIST AUTH allowed me to white list my users that authenticate. You're correct, that's what it does. But like Scott said, you have to be running

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] subjectchars

2004-11-03 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Andrew, I have been wondering the same, but have not had time to post it. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew > Sent: Wednesday, November 03,

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH

2004-11-03 Thread Michael Graveen
Scott, What does the line "Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH"? I thought WHITELIST AUTH allowed me to white list my users that authenticate. Thanks, Mike At 04:29 PM 11/3/2004, you wrote: I am running Declude Junkmail (standard) v1.75. I keep getting the following line in the Declude logs: Invalid W

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] subjectchars

2004-11-03 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
Keith, I think you've caught a bug in Declude. I've verified what you found, and I'm enclosing a sample GMail with complete header (not mangled through a mail client). What I think Declude is doing is finding the text "subject:" in the domain keys header, instead of the the subject: line that fol

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH

2004-11-03 Thread R. Scott Perry
I am running Declude Junkmail (standard) v1.75. I keep getting the following line in the Declude logs: Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH The line WHITELIST AUTH is un-commented in the global.cfg file. Could someone shed some light on what's going on here? I'm not sure what "Invalid WHITELIST ty

[Declude.JunkMail] Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH

2004-11-03 Thread Michael Graveen
I am running Declude Junkmail (standard) v1.75. I keep getting the following line in the Declude logs: Invalid WHITELIST type: AUTH The line WHITELIST AUTH is un-commented in the global.cfg file. Could someone shed some light on what's going on here? I'm not sure what "Invalid WHITELIST typ

[Declude.JunkMail] subjectchars

2004-11-03 Thread Keith Johnson
Anyone have an issue using gmail.com email that is fails the subjectchars test if you place more than one word in the subject line? Line reads: LONGSUBJsubjectchars60 * 0 0 Subject Line used: "Test Me" Keith --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Viru

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.56 released

2004-11-03 Thread Nick Hayer
On 1 Nov 2004 at 19:08, Sanford Whiteman wrote: Sandy, I have this working with SA 3.01 > very nice..! Question - with your new 'e' switch - can the weight returned be capped eg a max return value? -Nick > All, > > SPAMC32 has been updated to more easily function as a "weight" test in > add

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread William Stillwell
Honestly, The best "Method" of retrieving this information is to do the following... Make a downloadable version, that has time expiration requiring no user information to be provided, and if they would like more use they have to register it for free to remove the time lock., And state the reason t

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread John Carter
... which is why I hold ezips (along with others) and manually review. (Also should clarify earlier email-- F-Prot seems to catching non-ezips.) John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:11 PM T

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Boy, what an attitude.   You must be a Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde, as I am sure you treat your clients with better respect than that.   John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You   -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Be

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread Dan Geiser
Title: Message Or Snapple addresses... - Original Message - From: Kevin Bilbee To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 4:13 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the information. I can now block smaphole address f

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
Title: Message Of course!  It's a free country.  Oh wait.  I'm in Canada.   Andrew 8) -Original Message-From: Kevin Bilbee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:13 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Th

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread Scott Fisher
You've got more faith in F-Prot than I do. According to my logs, F-prot is missing encrypted zips that McAfee and ClamAV catch here. - Original Message - From: "John Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:59 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMa

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread Kevin Bilbee
Title: Message Thanks for the information. I can now block smaphole address from downloading the software???     Kevin Bilbee -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Colbeck, AndrewSent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:07 PMTo: '[E

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
Title: Message tip: if you don't trust a requestor but need to supply a valid address and would prefer to simply filter the mail, rather than clutter the requestor's database, you can use SpamHole instead.  SpamHole will give you a time-limited valid address on their domain, so that you can

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters

2004-11-03 Thread Scott Fisher
The skipifweight... the run order is (rbl tests, external tests, fromfile, ipfile, then filters). So weighting wise, you have only accumulated have your scores at this time. Maxweight: As of 1.78 the "fromfile" test type will now stop processing at first match. So Maxweight wouldn't be useful.

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread Chase Seibert
I did not file this request, but I do post simular forms to other sites on occasion.  Generally, my reasoning is: I don't know you, and I don't trust you not to spam me. It's none of your bussiness. It's pretentious to assume that you can require me to give you my email address. Besides, I like pi

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread John Carter
But BANEXT ZIP and EZIP and BANZIPEXT are dumping into \Virus\ too. Although F-Prot seems to be catching 100% of the infected ones, it didn't always do so. I've been burned on that. So mixed up in \Virus\ are held detected vulnerabilities, banned ext, and banned zips. I go in find the legit Zips a

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters

2004-11-03 Thread R. Scott Perry
Is there any size limitation (# of entries per file) imposed on fromfiles or the number or fromfiles you can have listed in the Global.cfg? No. Can you use the SKIPIFWEIGHT and MAXWEIGHT in the fromfiles? No. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters

2004-11-03 Thread Keith Johnson
Can you use the SKIPIFWEIGHT and MAXWEIGHT in the fromfiles? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters Scott,

[Declude.JunkMail] OT: NO@no.com

2004-11-03 Thread Kevin Bilbee
To whome tried to qnwnload my hold analyzer with the following information DLA Downloaded by Name: Why Do You Title: Request Company Name: This Information Number of domains on IMail: 1 Address: 123 No City: No State: NO Zip: NO Phone Number: NO Phone Extension: NO Email Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread Bill Landry
- Original Message - From: "Colbeck, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > John, why are you worried about viruses being held in your spam folder? If > they're held, they're effectively quarantined and the user isn't bothered by > it, just as they're not bothered by the spam in that folder. > > P

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread Kevin Bilbee
look at a program that I wrote. We have been using it very successfully for about a year now http://www.ssc-isp.net/holdanalyzer/ Kevin Bilbee > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Carter > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:51 AM

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
John, why are you worried about viruses being held in your spam folder? If they're held, they're effectively quarantined and the user isn't bothered by it, just as they're not bothered by the spam in that folder. Please share, Andrew 8) -Original Message- From: John Carter [mailto:[EMAI

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread John Carter
Looks like either way I have to go through 100's of held messages daily to find that 99.9% are spam and then manually delete them. I guess I'll pull the ol' Visual Basic out and work up a solution. Thanks, John (Scott wrote) Your option here would be to add a line "AVAFTERJM ON" to the \IMail\De

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Question about Filters

2004-11-03 Thread Keith Johnson
Scott, Is there any size limitation (# of entries per file) imposed on fromfiles or the number or fromfiles you can have listed in the Global.cfg? Thanks, Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry Sent: Tuesday, November

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread R. Scott Perry
I have a problem I think relates to the priority of holding vulnerabilities before the actions of filters kicks in. Declude Virus by default takes priority over Declude JunkMail. So an E-mail held by Declude Virus would not even be scanned by Declude JunkMail. My filter file, among other things

[Declude.JunkMail] Vulnerability hold conflicting with filter

2004-11-03 Thread John Carter
I have a problem I think relates to the priority of holding vulnerabilities before the actions of filters kicks in. My filter file, among other things, has the following: BODY 1 CONTAINS GenerationX Solutions The action in the $default$.junkmail is to delete. This works when no vulnerabil

Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] ANN: SPAMC32 (SpamAssassin SPAMC for Declude) 0.5.56 released

2004-11-03 Thread Nick
On 2 Nov 2004 at 21:07, Eric Krichbaum wrote: > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/SpamdOnWindows I am using cygwin > Directions still worked fine for me with 3.0.1 Well I'm happy for you :) I'll fiddle and get it - its good to know that it does work without issue - THanks -Nick > > At 0