Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Hijack

2005-08-31 Thread Darin Cox
I also posted a VBS script a couple of months ago that could be easily modified to do this. It's in the archives. Darin. - Original Message - From: "Evans Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Hijack IPB v4.0 will pr

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Hijack

2005-08-31 Thread Evans Martin
IPB v4.0 will produce a report of nobody aliases on all of your domains. http://www.martekware.com/ipb Evans Martin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:46 AM > To: Decl

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] General Filter

2005-08-31 Thread Dave Doherty
Orim- We are preparing to send a mass message to all accounts on this issue. A handy utility, in case you don't know about it, is mailall.exe in your Imail directory. Docs are at http://www.ipswitch.com/Support/ICS/guides/IMailServer/8_2/IMailUGHTML/Chapter%2022%20cmd_line8.html -Dave -

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Accumulation of old mail in mailboxes

2005-08-31 Thread Dave Doherty
Hi Orin- It's a good tool. I use it on a schedule just like Matt suggested. Use with caution! It is very powerful, and it will eat all your customers' email over X days old if you are not careful... Don't forget the -m option! -Dave - Original Message - From: "Orin Wells" <[EMAIL P

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] General Filter

2005-08-31 Thread Orin Wells
At 12:29 PM 8/31/2005, Dave Beckstrom wrote: > Aren't they authenticating to Imail, and aren't you white listing > authenticated senders? Wellthat is another issue we are finally being forced to address. In the first place we are still running iMail 7.07 - we weren't willing to pay what I

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Accumulation of old mail in mailboxes

2005-08-31 Thread Orin Wells
How about that? Right there in the iMail documentation too. I will give it a try. Thanks. At 12:34 PM 8/31/2005, Matt wrote: Here's what I use. It comes with IMail. You can search for the executable in the Ipswitch knowledge base. The following line deletes anything older than 7 days in

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Linked in

2005-08-31 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Sorry, but can't resist... >> Any one have opinions good/bad on www.linkedin.com? >> > Has a lot of members I know > > Barry Is that good or bad? ;-)> John T eServices For You --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTE

[Declude.JunkMail] Let the scams begin (hoping not)

2005-08-31 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Found in 3 held messages: (Spaces inserted in the e-mail address) Donate a $1 now or $1,000 - Send donation to donate @ katrinahelpfund . com on paypal every little bit helps Just a paypal account up right now, but it is all i can do with internet up and down.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: when to try lower priority MX

2005-08-31 Thread Sanford Whiteman
> I have a problem sending mail to a specific domain, ag.aaa.dk. The > problem is that the primary MX closes the connection right away, > newer returns any response. A few people claim that very early socket-level disconnects should not necessarily be treated as an accepted connection.

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Linked in

2005-08-31 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has a lot of members I know Barry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists) Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 4:10 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Linked in Any one have opinions good/bad on w

[Declude.JunkMail] Linked in

2005-08-31 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Any one have opinions good/bad on www.linkedin.com? John T eServices For You --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Accumulation of old mail in mailboxes

2005-08-31 Thread Matt
Here's what I use. It comes with IMail. You can search for the executable in the Ipswitch knowledge base. The following line deletes anything older than 7 days in any file under the E:\mailpure.com directory including sub-directories that is named Hold.mbx. If you have a standard and unique

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] General Filter

2005-08-31 Thread Dave Beckstrom
John, I left a voicemail message for you this morning to call me. Please give me a call ASAP. Thanks, Dave > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff (Lists) > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:24 PM > To:

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] General Filter

2005-08-31 Thread Matt
Orin, Declude unfortunately scans the entire undecoded message with BODY or ANYWHERE filters.  Because base64 encoding uses mostly letters and numbers, larger attachments can hit shorter words such as the one you pointed out.  As a rule of thumb, you should add a space to the end of the word i

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] General Filter

2005-08-31 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
BODY filters are generally the LAST test you want to rely on for several reasons, including problems with encoding (such as you are witnessing) and resources used. However, what concerns me is why are any actions being taken on messages sent from one person in a domain to another person in the sa

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] General Filter

2005-08-31 Thread David Barker
You could try adding the following or something similar at the beginning of your filter BODYEND CONTAINSContent-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Or instead of END a -10 depending n the values in your filter. David B www.declude.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTE

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fprot def updates

2005-08-31 Thread Matt
Updating for a network of 100 machines is a different story, but when running one copy on a Declude server, there is no advantage to using FTP. Over a year ago, the updater service would hang when F-Prot's servers were overwhelmed. This was just bad programming on their part, and I haven't se

[Declude.JunkMail] Accumulation of old mail in mailboxes

2005-08-31 Thread Orin Wells
We are directing suspected spam into spam boxes for our clients. Some of them are too lazy to go look and clean this out. Does anyone know of or have a utility that will go through at least a domain, check for specific mailbox names and remove anything older than a specified date? ---

[Declude.JunkMail] General Filter

2005-08-31 Thread Orin Wells
I am having a problem with a client whose email to other members of her domain is getting trapped by the GeneralFilter (words or phrases we have added because they seem to mostly appear in spam). In this particular case the triggering word seems to be P*O*R*N* without the stars. I suspect wha

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fprot def updates

2005-08-31 Thread Tyran Ormond
I disagree that using the updater app is a better solution over using FTP scripts (yes, I'm current on licensing). I have 100 machines running fprot and every machine updates four times daily. I have one machine set to download the definitions via an FTP script and then all the other machines

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fprot def updates

2005-08-31 Thread Serge
I am using the 32bit liscenced version (with 50$ a year, i think i can afford it :) But there are isuses with the built in updater, as sometimes it fails to complete the download, and stay open on the screen FTP was much more reliable - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Fprot def updates

2005-08-31 Thread Matt
Serge, This doesn't directly answer your question, but this might be some help. I think that the general consensus around here is that paying for the licensed version is the best way to go since it gets you the faster 32-bit command line app instead of the 16-bit one that the free version ha

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: when to try lower priority MX

2005-08-31 Thread Matt
I believe that if the connection never happens, then IMail will go up to the next priority.  It may be that IMail is configured to only step up to the next priority when there is no connection, but if there is some sort of error, I'm guessing that it just queues the message and starts the proce

[Declude.JunkMail] Beta Program Updates

2005-08-31 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For all participants of the Beta Program Regular updates regarding the Beta Program are available through the customer log in option at https://www.declude.com/myaccount.asp? Select the beta Program link. Barry --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just

re: [Declude.JunkMail] Review spam in hold queue?

2005-08-31 Thread Daniel Grotjan
Well it appears the attachment didn't go through, so here is a link where you can download it... http://www.silverlinesolutions.com/downloads/SpoolSpamCheck.zip I'll probably only have it posted there for the next couple of days. If anyone wants it after that, email me. -Daniel -- Or

re: [Declude.JunkMail] Review spam in hold queue?

2005-08-31 Thread Daniel Grotjan
I wrote a real quick app a long time ago when I was trying to review an overloaded imail spool to see if there were any legit messages in it. It's no spam review, but it will show you a list of messages in a folder with To, From, Subject, and Size in a listview. You can click on each one to se

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Problem with Declude 3

2005-08-31 Thread Dan Horne
No they weren't held by hijack.  The only ones that were held by hijack that day were a bunch of messages to Declude notifying them that it had been installed.  I still don't know why it needed to send so many messages to them about that.  There were 40-something in the hold2, which means it

[Declude.JunkMail] Fprot def updates

2005-08-31 Thread Serge
Hi all I was using scripts to download fprot def I use to download fp-def.zip and macrdef2.zip I just noticed these file are no longer on their ftp anyone else having this problem ? TIA --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTE

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: when to try lower priority MX

2005-08-31 Thread Colbeck, Andrew
Kaj, I don't have any comment on what's right or wrong in this scenario, but I can still chip in two cents. I had the same and similar problems with half a dozen domains, including MSN/Hotmail. What I did was to first try and contact the admin there outside of email to talk about the problem,

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Problem with Declude 3

2005-08-31 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Check the Hijack logs to see if the message might have been held. When messages are held by HOLD1 of Hijack and then released, they are directly placed back into the spool and handed to Imail. As such, no further processing is done by Declude, including no Declude headers.   John T eS

[Declude.JunkMail] JAMMDNSBL

2005-08-31 Thread Sharyn Schmidt
Title: JAMMDNSBL Good morning, All of a sudden, out of the blue, one of my own users is triggering this JAMMDNSBL test. (using his cruzanltd.com email address) Did something change? I have been off this list for awhile, and doing a search in the archives reveals nothing. I have not made

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Review spam in hold queue?

2005-08-31 Thread Darin Cox
Yep... I tried for months to get the code, but when I got the rare response was told they were talking to Declude. Scott denied it at the time, so they may have just been putting me off. I'm planning to writing a tool (will require .NET 1.1) in spare time over the next couple of months to replace

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Problem with Declude 3

2005-08-31 Thread Dan Horne
Yes I am running Hijack.    In response to Matt's post, the services were not restarted anywhere near the time that the messages came through.  It came in, according to the headers I posted in the OP, at 2:14 AM.  The Decludeproc service shut down on its own around 3:45 AM.  The server didn'

[Declude.JunkMail] OT: when to try lower priority MX

2005-08-31 Thread Kaj Søndergaard Laursen
Hi I have a problem sending mail to a specific domain, ag.aaa.dk. The problem is that the primary MX closes the connection right away, newer returns any response. Imail seems to treat this as a temporary problem, and newer tries the other server with lower priority MX record. Is this the rig