Hi,
I've spent hundreds of hours (literally) adjusting the weights and
tests, adding sniffer, my own filters, etc to get the highest possible
catch rate with the lowest possible false positive rate.
I also delete at one weight and hold at a different weight to give
me a margin of error. I don't c
Thanks Barry and Scott... much appreciated! I'm sure all of the customers,
on and off of service agreements appreciate you making appropriate versions
with fixes available to them.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Barry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005
Why should I need to upgrade when the problem is a bug.
I didn't have any problems running the excellent version that I am running
at present thank you so should there be a bug fix or do I need to get a
service agreement.
Let's see :-)
_
Glen Harvy
Aquarius Co
All of the input and suggestions as to how issues like this could be handled
has been noted and I thank you for your input
We will be posting the updated, fixed .exe on our site tomorrow. For those
who have current service agreements please feel free to download it now from
the following link.
Fo
Just an FYI, Barry did call me this afternoon, and while the exact
approach that they would take wasn't shared, it was clear that he
understood the general need. This has only become an issue for us
because of the change in how things are released as interims were
formerly plentiful, very quic
It did affect us throwing weight higher on emails that would not have
otherwise failed the Spam Header Filter. We hold on a relatively low weight
of 13 compared to other configs I have seen posted with weights of 100, 200,
etc. The bottom line is if I did not stroll in here on New Years and catch
t
I agree with your comments, Matt. The other thing that has frustrated me is
the fact that a bug will be fixed in an interim release and no mention of it
will be made on the list until someone else complains about the problem on
the list. Then there would come a response, "oh, that was fixed two m
R. Scott Perry wrote:
The main reason this wasn't done was because it wasn't clear that this
was going to be as big an issue for our customers as it turned out to
be. The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor
test, anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out
On another note... has anyone seen any sort of (cascading?) effect from
the SpamHeaders glitch?
There aren't any, designed effects.
Specifically, all the SPAMHEADERS issue does is causes E-mails to fail the
SPAMHEADERS test. That adds weight to the E-mail, and if any actions are
performed on t
I am having problems exporting names from 2 OU's on an exchange server. The
directory structure looks like this
Admin Building
Tech Department
Business Department
If I enter 'ou="Tech Department",...'
I get the message Object not found
I tried
'ou="Admin Building",ou='Tech Department'
'ou="A
On another note... has anyone seen any sort of (cascading?) effect from the
SpamHeaders glitch?
I seem to have a fair amount of email winding up in our hold file that
failed both our weight tests and an IP hold test. They should have been
deleted based on the weight test, but are being held bas
Thanks for your response, Markus but I'd still like to see an answer
from CPHZ as to the availability of their recommended Config. They've pretty
much worked well for us in the past, I'm not one to re-invent the wheel and
there are many here that understand the use of these much better than
Scott-
As usual, the real problem was communications, not the problem itself.
Even if it's a minor test, simply acknowledging the problem and letting all
current users know - even if the only communication is "Here's a problem
we've identified. We are working on it." - goes a log way toward sooth
One other comment...We weight it much heavier than you indicate...with very
few false positives. It has been a good test for us.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "R. Scott Perry"
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declud
>Part of the reason for the delay (aside from it first being reported on a
>holiday during a weekend) was that the fix involves changing old source
>code, which is something that has never been done with Declude before. In
>the past, when issues such as this were detected, a change would be made t
> The thought was that since this is normally a relatively minor test,
> anyone that it does affect adversely would just comment out the
> test.
But that's forcing admins to comb their logs to find out what test is
malfunctioning, likely with Declude turned off entirely and
manage
Well said.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
H&M Systems Software, Inc.
600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PR
1. An acknowledgement on the list from someone that they knew about the
problem - it WAS a holiday and I think people should have lives - but just a
"hey we know" within 24 hours would've been nice.
Yes, that would have been nice. It did take a bit more than 24 hours for
an official response on
Scott,
I have been and still am a very satisfied Declude customer. I wasn't
looking for a faster fix, or an interim release, I didn't even want to
complain, just:
1. An acknowledgement on the list from someone that they knew about the
problem - it WAS a holiday and I think people should have liv
Hi Scott:
It is fine- when this happened I was out of the office and since we use a
number of combo filters this one filter misbehaving triggered a lot of other
tests which then had a cascade effect.
Of course when I found out we had 100 messages tagged as spam which are were
sent back to the add
I also agree it would have been nice to have a warning announcement about
the Spam
Header test being broken officially from Declude, more timely, and along
with advice what to do in the interim. This is not the same Declude
operation to me as in years past!
FWIW, it was handled very similarly to
I'm in the same situation. I would hope for some sort of free bug fix.
Perhaps release bug fixed versions of a few old versions could work?
-Dan
At 03:19 PM 1/3/2005, you wrote:
I think Jerry has this right. Both our Declude and IMail support agreements
are currently lapsed. We were planning on
> The urgent list you are referring to was for urgent virus
> notices, of which since inception there was only one use.
I've considered this list not virus- or junkmail-specific. Maybe my mistake.
It wasn't even specific to Declude Virus. The reason for the list was that
there was a rash of new
We are up-to-date with our support agreements way into 2005 and I am
awaiting a fix. I am not sure I understand the talk here about forced
license upgrade unless a customer support agreement has expired? I also
agree it would have been nice to have a warning announcement about the Spam
Header test
Well I just made a post, and this is the post I was expecting/looking for.
Thanks Scott!
-Don
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMai
> The urgent list you are referring to was for urgent virus
> notices, of which since inception there was only one use.
I've considered this list not virus- or junkmail-specific. Maybe my mistake.
Markus
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
Damnit Scott, you just took all the fun out of complaining. :)
Thanks for the info,
Sam
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Just to let everyone know, we have identified the issue with the
SPAMHEADERS test. As most people realized, most E-mails sent with a
date involving a year after 2004 were failing the SPA
Just to let everyone know, we have identified the issue with the
SPAMHEADERS test. As most people realized, most E-mails sent with a date
involving a year after 2004 were failing the SPAMHEADERS test.
For those that are interested in the details, if the SPAMHEADERS code
matches the bitmask 0x4
I think Jerry has this right. Both our Declude and IMail support agreements
are currently lapsed. We were planning on renewing both in early 2005 when
Ipswitch had their big fiasco over discontinuing IMail as a stand-alone
program. So we plan on dropping IMail and we postponed renewing the Declu
The urgent list you are referring to was for urgent virus notices, of which
since inception there was only one use.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus
Over a year ago I've asked several times to set up a separate mailing list
(I believe it was [EMAIL PROTECTED]) where ONLY urgent messages can
be sent to the subscribers.
Simple rules:
- no questions => existing lists
- no discussion => existing lists
- no opinion=> existing lists
- only thin
Declude/Imail Gurus,
We have been seeing a problem, almost exclusively with comcast.net for about
three months now. It's one of those intermittent problems that Mail Admins
love. This may be a Imail problem, but I thought I'd check here first.
Every so often (every couple days, weeks), at random
That's exactly what I have done.
I am definitely seeing more spam as a result of this problem. If I knew they
were planning to fix it in a day or two, I'd live with it. Since we did hear
from Barry something to the effect of "an announcement will made Monday
morning" I am waiting to make a decis
Why not just set the SPAMHEADERS weight to zero in GLOBAL.CFG as a
workaround until the problem is fixed by a new release?
---
[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 a
I think somebody already mentioned it.
-d
- Original Message -
From: "Jerry Murdock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] 2005 SpamHeaders Glitch?
I don't think that's fair for a bug like this. Declude has never been
presented
Hi,
I have a support contract, I'm NOT one of those inexperienced users, and
I DO primarily rely on the list for info.
Anyway you slice it, no notice from Declude about the issue (we figured
it out on our own the hard way when customers started complaining) and I
confirmed there was an issue via
I would like to receive notifications such notifications of all
know issues, or at least have a special section on their site for
things that aren't as widespread as this. That way it would save me
time in diagnosing and reporting issues that were already known, and of
course alert me to other
> I think this is a good opportunity for the Management at Declude to
> develop a notification policy.
Quite so. This is getting less Gee-golly-Scott-must-be-on-vacation and
more Something-must-be-done. There should be a security/stability
notification list, separate from the support
Pete:
Barry made a post to the Sniffer list but as far as I know there has not
been a notification to Declude Customers. When there is a major glitch in a
program like this, I would expect to be notified by the Vendor immediately.
Users are finding out from peer lists about this problem which was
IMO, let CPHZ decide how they want to handle their customers, and let
the customers decide how to handle CPHZ.
Things have already been said, and similar feelings are shared among
many others, but I don't know that they have developed an understanding
yet of the importance of 24/7/365 problem
On Monday, January 3, 2005, 11:30:22 AM, Marc wrote:
MC> I don't mean to be a nag but this was just posted to the
MC> sniffer forum and is exactly what I was talking about. It is
MC> almost 48 hours after the first post discussing this bug and
MC> there is still no e-mail from Declude that I am
Hi,
The inevitable in light of new management?
Thanks,
Andrew Baldwin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.thumpernet.com
315-282-0020
Monday, January 3, 2005, 11:30:22 AM, you wrote:
> I don't mean to be a nag but this was just posted to the sniffer
> forum and is exactly what I was talking about.
I don't think that's fair for a bug like this. Declude has never been
presented as being a "time sensitive" licensed product.
I know some of my old installs are still probably using older versions
without other issues. I've made my successors aware of this and it's up
to them now.
There are a l
I
don't mean to be a nag but this was just posted to the sniffer forum and is
exactly what I was talking about. It is almost 48 hours after the first post
discussing this bug and there is still no e-mail from Declude that I am aware of
that has gone out.
-Original Message-From:
At 07:59 AM 1/2/2005 +1100, you wrote:
>Great way to increase sales due to the need to update service agreements.
Anyone that runs production software without service agreements gets what
they deserve.
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E
45 matches
Mail list logo
