I have 3 gateway servers running IIS with ORF. These are my MX records for
all my domains.
ORF has identified and blocked 71% of incoming email on my primary gateway.
ORF has identified and blocked 81% of incoming email on my secondary
gateway. (Interesting in that my primary and secondary carry t
> Have you been eating some slightly pungent, soggy cornflakes, Sandy? You
> seem to be spoiling...
Well, I did post that *here*, which was pretty cowardly!
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Sy
Have you been eating some slightly pungent, soggy cornflakes, Sandy? You
seem to be spoiling...
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John T (Lists)"
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Disc
> I actually miss the twice annual entertaining discussions on the
> Imail forum between Scott and Len with Sandy added for spice.
Ah, olden tymes... me, I'm just waiting for the final showdown with
BRUCE BARNES.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Techn
Hear,Hear. That was great entertainment.
Kevin Bilbee
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John T (Lists)
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Interesting Discu
Please, no one take this the wrong way, it is only meant in fun:
I actually miss the twice annual entertaining discussions on the Imail forum
between Scott and Len with Sandy added for spice.
Popcorn anyone?
;-)>
John T
eServices For You
"Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to
>> Unlike... um, anyone on this list, it seems... I know firsthand
>> what SEC and NASD think of homegrown "compliance" solutions.
> That's why you pay someone else to do it and insist that they slap on a
> fancy name like "Perfect Super Uber E-mail Compliance Archive System".
If it's hoste
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Unlike... um, anyone on this list, it seems... I know firsthand what
SEC and NASD think of homegrown "compliance" solutions.
That's why you pay someone else to do it and insist that they slap on a
fancy name like "Perfect Super Uber E-mail Compliance Archive System".
> Brand it with a fancy name and they should be happy.
Who "should" be happy?
> IMail stores messages in an open format, and as long as you catch
> all of it, and archive it as required, that should be all that
> counts.
Well, it's not. Maybe it "should" be, but that's immaterial.
> Na
LOL thanks Matt
This is surprising to me because he is normally right about everything. (and
he doesnt even gloat about it)
Guess I've gotten so complacent, I don't even bother to question what he
says, unless it's something I know for sure that is wrong.
-Original Message-
From: [
> I'm afraid that your reading of SOX compliance is not widely
> practiced. If you block an E-mail, and it is never received by a
> person covered by SOX, then there is no reason to archive it.
You're correct. The goal of e-mail archival for public companies is
not to create an aud
Sharyn,
You might want to walk into his office, pick a discarded piece of junk
postal mail out of his garbage and ask him why he doesn't have to keep
his junk and you do :)
Of course that might get you fired, but maybe there's some middle ground
with an alternative approach that would allow
Brand it with a fancy name and they should be happy. IMail stores
messages in an open format, and as long as you catch all of it, and
archive it as required, that should be all that counts. Naturally I'm
simplifying, but in reality, all of these other products are programmed
by people too.
> ... and it should be acceptable to the feds.
Which feds?
The regulatory agencies I know would scoff at such a solution. But the
OP didn't mention this being done for external regulatory reasons,
anyway.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Bro
Chris,
3.x or 4.x will work with IMail 8.2+. Some have said that 1.x and 2.x
works with the newer IMail, but there have also been many reports of
issues, and it would make sense to upgrade both at the same time.
I have been running a 4.x version for over 6 months, and after you tune
the Dec
You could modify this technique with a similar one where the outgoing
and incoming mail boxes are actually program aliases that call a
VBScript (or whatever) which could then parse the recipients (which
would need to be logged in the headers since there is no Q* file with
program aliases) and t
> I would be interested in a paid solution though if there is one out
> there.
We use Global Relay (www.globalrelay.com) for our regulated/public
clients. They're really cool, customer service like you'd get from a
boutique shop, but with real heavy-hitting systems. They simply charge
by m
Hi... Checked the archives, but didn't find anything definitive. What version
should / need we be running to upgrade to 2006. Any special considerations?
We are running Declude 2.0.6 Junkmail Pro (with sniffer), Virus Standard.
Thanks
-Chris
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.Ju
The Imail CopyAll account will work, along with Imail Rules on that account.
John T
eServices For You
"Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Beha
I will keep ya posted, We are looking into some third party products and
other solutions. Your solution would work, however, But when given a request
to have all of the email of a certain person for x months is not easy to do
when you have to sift thru gigs of email.
-Original Message-
I know you said that catch all does not work but something I do for certain
clients is make two email accounts.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then I make a rule in Imail that sends a copy of all incoming to the
incoming address and then a copy of the outgoing mail to the outgoing email
add
We currently have the city attorneys looking into this whole issue with
a legal specialist in records law. But, from the discussions so far, it
turns out that we only have to NOT delete stuff in our possession that
is under investigation. That being said, if we drop our backup tape
retention period
Question Authority..
Chris
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sharyn
Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:44 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Why are these being whitelisted?
IF it is a
IF it is a mistake, then my boss is the one that is making it
I just do what I'm told!
:)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin
Cox
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:31 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.Junk
MessageThat has to be a mistake. For example, if a company were to use an
external filtering service, they would have no means of archiving spam that had
been filtered out.
Also, with spam currently at 90% of all incoming email, it's ludicrous to have
to archive 10x the actual legitimate email
Does anybody know of a product (that doesn't cost a arm, and three legs)
that will archive all email for a specific domain for x number of years?
Imail "CopyAll" Will not work.. No way to "orginize" all the email, and I
don't want to archive the spam...
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.Jun
I'm afraid that your reading of SOX compliance is not widely practiced.
If you block an E-mail, and it is never received by a person covered by
SOX, then there is no reason to archive it. SOX in fact essentially
requires that spam and virus blocking services be utilized in order to
help secur
SOX only affects publicly traded companies, right?
As far as I know, right!
---
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.co
SOX only affects publicly traded companies, right?
Rumors abound right now about changes in the rules.
-- Michael Cummins
> We are required to archive ALL incoming mail.
> The Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not differentiate
> between legitimate mail and spam :)
---
This E-mail came from the Decl
We are required to archive ALL incoming mail. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act does
not differentiate between legitimate mail and spam :)
I did remove the whitelist to.
I went back to using the masterbkup.junkmail file and just setting all
actions to ignore.
I just wanted to know what had caused this,
MessageYou're required to archive spam? I can't imagine that. I would remove
the WHITELIST TO.
Note that if any of the recipients are whitelisted, then all will effectively
be whitelisted for that message.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Sharyn Schmidt
To: declude.junkmail@declu
Here is the log for the message that really ticked me off. Sorry it's so
long but this message was sent to a ton of ppl, and it was whitelisted for
all of them.
The ONLY account that has any reference to whitelist is the masterbkup
account which is our copy all account in which we archive all ema
MessageOn that one I am not sure - I would bump your logs to HIGH and than we
will be able to tell for sure.
Darrell
Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude And Imail.
IMail/Declude Overflow Que
If you change your log level to high it will log the exact reason the
message was whitelisted.
Also, remember if one user on the email (even if they were BCC'ed) is
whitelisted the whole message will be whitelisted.
What if all email is sent to a copyall account and I had the settings to
WHI
Why are these being whitelisted?If you change your log level to high it will
log the exact reason the message was whitelisted.
Also, remember if one user on the email (even if they were BCC'ed) is
whitelisted the whole message will be whitelisted.
Darrell
-
MessageWe leave the Auto Whitelist feature on (our users use it), but just
caution them against having their own address in the address book.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Sharyn Schmidt
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Dec
Did you turn on the Auto Whitelist feature? That whitelists sender
addresses that appear in the recipient's webmail address book. It doesn't
appear to be so in this case, but we've seen problems with users having
their own address in their webmail address book, resulting in whitelisting
forging s
Why are these being whitelisted?Did you turn on the Auto Whitelist feature?
That whitelists sender addresses that appear in the recipient's webmail address
book. It doesn't appear to be so in this case, but we've seen problems with
users having their own address in their webmail address book,
As a followup to this email, I have a question.
I have a copy-all account for SEC purposes in which all incoming mail gets
copied to. I put THIS account in the WHITELIST TO because we need to see a
copy of EVERYTHING coming in, not just non spam emails.
So, here is my question. If I whitelist s
Hi,
12.5% of all email I receive has SPF records.
I fail 2.6% of all email based on SPF failing.
9.9% have matching SPF, 1/3 of those are spam.
I have created my own RDNSBL that I use to match MAIL-FROM and REVDNS and
give it the hold weight. This way I catch spammers who were nice enough to
cr
Just upgraded to 4.3.23.
I'm getting a ton of stuff now that is being whitelisted.
I have several users whitelisted TO but not the entire domain. This is not
one of the users that is whitelisted TO.
Suggestions?
Here is the header info:
Received: from SpeedTouch.lan [83.8.172.182] by cruzaninc
FYI...
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SPF Announcements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:34 AM
Subject: [spf-announce] Website relaunch / Increasing SPF deployment and
software support / The 2007 council elections
---
Sure is quiet.
Mike
From: "IS - Systems Eng. \(Karl Drugge\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:49 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] List up ?
List up ? Nothing in a day or so..
Karl Drugge
43 matches
Mail list logo
