Sharyn,
You should specify what version of Declude you are asking about. FYI,
IMail 8.2+ requires Declude 3+. Some claim that older versions of
Declude will work, however there are also widely reported problems with
IMail 8.2+ and it is no doubt safest to run Declude 3+.
Matt
Sharyn
in order for the weight
skipping mechanism to operate. Other external apps have no weight
skipping built into them and this would add the much needed
functionality to save resources.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
I've been mulling this one over as I watch my spam filtering CPU time
s
ombies.
* *Spamdexing *- The act of spreading links to a site by posting
them in blogs, guestbooks and message boards with the goal of
improving search ranking of the sites listed.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Matt:
What is a "static" spammer?
I've looked into a few in
spam, or a real E-mail service that has Advance Fee Fraud users (Hotmail
for instance), or service providers that are forwarding E-mail, or
possibly forwarding phishing on behalf of hacked servers in their network.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Is it me - or should MXRate-Allow be treated as a
CONTAINS SNIFFER-IP
In your Global.cfg, you would only need to make sure that ADD-WEIGHT
appear before EXTRA-WEIGHT.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
I'm familiar with MAXWEIGHT and I'm using it.
It doesn't address this particular application.
Best Regards
*/Andy Schmidt/*/
/
h END.
A STOP function would not be a bad idea, and to create ABORT in the
place of END (same thing, different name), and depricating END as Andrew
suggested in 2004 would make sense as far as confusion goes and also to
add extra functionality, but that is in fact a feature request.
Matt
An
Read my post and not Nick's :)
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
I didn't think there was any difference between the two examples,
except for the different scoring based on DNS result code.
Just curious as to why mine was deemed "improper"...
Darin.
- Original Message
results. Declude will handle the multiple results and skip redundant
lookups.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Then what was wrong with my example?
Darin.
- Original Message -
*From:* Matt <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* declude.junkmail@declude.com <mailto:declude.junkmail@declude.c
5 0
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
I don't use sbl-xbl or xbl, so I can't confirm this...
but there website refers to a 127.0.0.5 for a NJABL and the 127.0.0.4
for CBL
No mention of blitzedall anymore.
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=Spamhaus%20XBL
What do
Andy,
What you posted will work exactly the same way and there is no advantage
either way except that your example is more normalized. I use the
variables for a purpose that isn't necessary for most.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Matt:
Are you saying there is an advantage of the
-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.650
Matt
David Sullivan wrote:
Hello Darin,
Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 4:12:49 PM, you wrote:
DC> SBL ip4rsbl.spamhaus.org * 55 0
DC> XBL ip4rxbl.spamhaus.org * 55 0
I was using 127.0.0.2 for SBL and 127.0.0.4 for XBL but Sp
hops the same as the last hop.
Why don't you just whitelist this customer by setting up a blank
per-domain config for them? If they want Postini, why not let them have it?
Matt
Bill Green dfn Systems wrote:
I have a customer whose email domain we are hosting who recently began
rtools.com/Help/SmarterMail/v3/Default.aspx?p=SA&v=3.3.2369&page=domainadmin/frmlists
Matt
Harry Palmer wrote:
When I send an unsubscribe e-mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" I receive the
following error:
"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host smtp1.declude.com[66.92.83.27] said
deleting or holding
messages with Declude, they will not be handled by Queue Manager which
then protects Queue Manager from crashing. Well protected servers are
also more stable.
Matt
Heimir Eidskrem wrote:
I appreciate your suggestion and will implement it but I find it
pretty amazing
ld be removed from Review before throwing the
contents back into Proc. This is in fact how Declude should approach
this problem rather than just a blind copying of files into Proc, or
blind moving of files into Review.
Matt
Heimir Eidskrem wrote:
I have this in the declude.cfg file but
time period
very low. I ran into an issue on 2006.1 where setting everything to 0
did not functionally disable this, and if you are running a gateway, it
is best to not block your gateway :)
Matt
Linda Pagillo wrote:
Matt, i did what you said.. i now have anonomyus and basic auth checked
I set up.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
I don't have a solution - just a pointer. When I go to that particular
screen, I get an NTFS logon screen. Apparently you don't get prompted - I
wonder why?
Do you have auditing turned for object access and against your folders in
Windows Exp
mmers. Since all of these
techniques are built to target forging zombie spam, they would be better
off just doing something that better targtets zombie spam instead of
trying to push yet another E-mail ID scheme.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Just throwing this out there. I had heard that Yaho
If you can get a newer download, it will run for at least a week
without a proper code. That will give you time to get the code.
Matt
Brian T. wrote:
Thanks,
I guess that this issue is present,
because since upgrading to Imail 8.22 I have had problems with the
spool
a big deal to remove the person's own address
from their own address book to fix that too.
So if you generally started blocking on a score of 20, and would want
to not AUTOWHITELIST any multiple recipient E-mail, this is what you
would use:
BYPASSWHITELIST bypasswhitelist 2
should consider approaching this header the
exact same way as all of the others it inserts; fully customizable with
variables, and different for incoming and outgoing E-mail. All that
would need to be done is add a %DecludeRefID% to the list and leave it
at that, no packing of this header by
David,
Thanks to both you and the other Dave for taking another look at this.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Darin,
Our engineer Dave Franco is looking at a way to rewrite every message to
standardize the format in order to overcome the incorrect line terminator
issue. As there are several other
t work otherwise I will be faced with
blocking legitimate E-mail in a non-reviewable area, or potentially
passing viruses completely unscanned. That's not a good set of choices.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Matt,
I'm not sure that the issue is attachments. There is nothing wron
is currently a method of blocking such messages
in Declude with a vulnerability switch, I know that this is not a
universally accurate method, and I fear that it could tag things such as
Linux style text attachments.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Well, the necessary logic seems absolutely
of hours. I have
a plug-in that I wrote for Declude that is fully capable of
understanding CR patterns as well as long base64 code without issue.
Matt
Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
David,
In my opinion, which others may not share, Declude should detect all
RFC/MIME violations and flag t
hosted mail server would see a slightly higher rate since
most multiple-recipient E-mails are internal to a server. If you are
splitting on a gateway and not splitting internal E-mail, you should
see no increase beyond my numbers.
It's a doable solution if one has the need.
Matt
Jay Sud
FYI, Alligate also does splitting.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
Anti-spam\virus mail gateways.
I know barracuda, (now Symantec), does the splitting for whitelisting.
Kevin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
the probabilities together into two groups so that it is
compatible with common spam blocking techniques.
That's really just a nutshell overview, but I think it should suffice.
Matt
David Sullivan wrote:
Anyone familiar with the difference between MXRate's public list and
their
itted. I have only had to whitelist one host from
these protections in around 6 months of operation, so it takes care of
itself.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Well, it didn't run for us. We tried and it caused random BSOD and ISS
wouldn't provide any support.
-Jay
water and he has no licensing
restrictions. IMO of course.
Matt
chris wrote:
The option
is there, lets not kid
ourselves, for you issue is cost, I can understand that….
Chris
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On B
at in itself. This is more so a fight about the way that the US
court system approaches spammer litigation than it is fighting the
spammers itself. It's about time that the courts started throwing this
stuff out and even fining the litigants.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
terset. If you just simply capture such messages, it
excludes these things from more granular control and other things like
review and reprocessing mechanisms.
Matt
chris wrote:
I am writing a kb as we speak see if this link helps you with the char-sets
http://www.iana.org/assignments/charac
it takes more processing power since Global.cfg
whitelist hits can be used to immediately stop processing of most spam
tests.
Matt
S.J.Stanaitis wrote:
I'm trying to add confidentiality footers do outgoing emails. All arguments
over necessity aside, I need to get 'er done.
being recorded will expose the issue.
Matt
Wolf Tombe wrote:
I apologize if this is
OT; but this is the best support
group I know of for emergency situations, and I have one. Starting one
week ago today (slept 13th), my iMail Sysxxx.txt log files
began to grow
out of contr
. Clearly things are different enough
that one might trigger certain behaviors one one instead of the other.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Hi Matt,
All of my servers are 2003, but I
have had seen some small stability issues with 2003 where I didn't with
fully patched 2000. Also
Darin,
2 cents here. I have had very, very few issues that may have been
related to Windows 2003, and some of my servers get pounded on. It is
the most stable platform that I have used to date, and it is definitely
more secure by default than 2k. YMMV of course.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote
My reading of Kevin Gills' message on 9/11 was that most everything but
rich text editing now works, and that rich text support will be in the
next release. Naturally I haven't tested it, and it definitely needs
testing before committing Mac users to this interface. See below:
Hi All,
Ye
can cause upgrades to occur (see Ipswitch too). Of course
that may be borderline schizo thinking.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
I finally was able to get a confirmation from Microsoft Support yesterday
afternoon (case: SRZ060911001854)
"We are aware the issue you are experiencing.
ve an upgrade
path from 8.22, they should definitely provide it.
Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
On the IMail list they indicated that IMail 8.x is also affected and
possibly older versions as well.
A non-Ipswitch poster said that an anonymous tech indicated so. We all
know th
will do.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Here are the published
details. The anonymous researcher provided no information for other
than the 2006 versions, so your question is still open, Gunter.
http://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-06-028.html
A
It is also quite possible that this was greylisting 451 errors are
commonly used for greylisting:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/greylisting.html
A 452 error would imply a disk space issue, however these codes are not
used in a perfectly consistant manner.
Matt
John
Nick,
Do you buy any chance have have this IP also covered by a whitelist
entry of any type in your Global.cfg?
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
To David at Declude - or anyone else...
I have these lines in my global config Declude 4.3.7:
IPBYPASS12.152.254.14
XINHEADERX-Note: Sent from
asures. So
the process should be changed to be more granular.
With that said, I still would rather see the long known outstanding
bugs addressed first. Clearly there has been a decision to ignore our
concerns about these bugs and work on the gateway. That's an
unfortunate way to deal with o
doing this
for several years without issue.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Dean, I'm not sure if this is close to what you're looking for, but in
addition to the forfiles command, the "for" command that is built into
the command shell can be very handy, particularly if you&#x
Close, but it's a ton easier than that. This will delete all the files
in the specified directory that are older than 7 days:
FORFILES /p C:\spamfolder /m *.* /d -8 /c "cmd /c DEL @file"
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Dean, I'm not sure if this is close to what you&#x
ecent
hotfixes seems to make a lot of sense. Keep in mind also that this
probably affects more than just <= 4KB images.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Yes it started around this weekend - and, in our case too, those are small
JPEG/GIF thumbnail images of up to 4K (so probably exactly one al
Kevin,
Declude running with SmarterMail does integrate into the SmarterMail
spam blocking configuration so that isn't an issue. For a gateway
though, this solution would in fact seem to be a reasonably good
solution, and it wouldn't be that difficult to do.
Matt
Kevin Bi
I use custom DNS zones for both blacklisting and whitelisting since it
is just about as scalable as you can get. If performance isn't an
issue, the Declude filters will do just fine.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
Blacklisting by IP address/IP range
using the IPFILE option wou
y can use content filters.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
SmarterMail content
filters can
easily search headers … I have been doing this for weeks without issue.
Thanks!
-
Jay
Sudowski // Handy
Networks LLC
Director
of Technical Opera
SmarterMail, one could easily make this solid
enough that it couldn't be exploited for lower points.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
There
would have to be a way to secure something like this. If
it can be added by a gateway what would stop a spammer form adding it
with a -1
w
It would be nice if SmarterTools would introduce a simple scoreable
text filter that could search at least the headers. That way a score
could be passed from any gateway to SmarterMail for actions.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
I can confirm this is the only way it will
good number of them fail when
tarpitted.
Matt
Chuck Schick wrote:
I am starting to see a lot of spam email that uses the recipient domain in
the from address. So if the mail is going to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the
from address may be something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any
declude test to s
ng, but I would recommend
either ORF, or Alligate Gateway for this, and Alligate Gateway is the
easiest of all to configure to do validation since it can resolve in
real-time off of the destination server and/or from an address flat file.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Add the following line to
nk me for saying this, but
I honestly don't think that we'll ever see that day because a large part
of me thinks it is already way too late. Honest.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Matt,
1. With regards to no new functionality, we have been over this I agreed and
made a commitment to
On 7/19/06, Kevin Bilbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If revenue would not be lost without it and it costs you money to provide then
what is the business case for providing the service?
In 2006, for any small operator, nothing insofar as the service itself
is concerned. You only do it to provid
On 7/19/06, Kevin Bilbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So then indirectly it does generate revenue. Because without it revenue
would be lost.
Hardly. Carry that argument out to prove how wrong it is. By virtue
of the fact that they allow me to be in business in the first place I
can expect a kno
On 7/14/06, Scott Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another hand raised. End User (business) here. Apparantly I missed the
Exchange memo.
Put yourr hand down :-) According to the definition you are a service
provider. Quoted with emphasis added:
"definition: a business which provides their c
ome others
that I know.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Ouch' let keep it in context. We have added an option that is comparable to
Message Sniffer at 1/2 the price of Message Sniffer and I don't get it. ;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
ing the Ipswitch of then, and start copying the
Ipswitch of now under Kevin Gillis' direction as they try to pick up
the pieces of past mistakes.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
CT is a feature of the new Declude Gateway product. It was by my request
that we made CT available to Declude Security Su
David Barker wrote:
I don't understand why this is a problem.
That in fact IS the problem, isn't it?
:)
Matt
---
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&
David Barker wrote:
I did not say that Postini offered a poor service it was a comment from
Matt.
Actually, that was a private comment from and old conversation with me,
and I think the point was missed. Postini is the McDonalds of the spam
blocking business. It's edible, it even t
regard as things like Sniffer,
CommTouch might be a good solution (if it performs well) for those that
can pay the $195/year, however it still irks me that after two years and
lots of promises, these things are being added at an extra expense and
not available to people like me under reasonable t
ing and pricing. Declude is not
big enough of a company to defeat the lingua franca of the industries it
operates within.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Matt,
Managed services is the fastest growing segment of this industry, CAGR
forecasted at 25% per year through 2009. While the industry may seem
co
fees. The only revenue that I share
is with those that generate business for my company. If I get rich off
of doing what I am doing, it will be primarily the result of my blood,
sweat and tears, otherwise there would be 10,000 others just like me.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
There are
nning is a major contributer to
overall load.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
David Barker wrote:
Declude has
this process and functionality built in to the Declude product which
enables
customers to use a command line scanners like ClamWin
Brian Burns port called ClamAV supports clamd which
thing more than a couple of hundred
dollars for their product regardless, so $500 or $5,000 is all the same
in effect.
Matt
Dave Beckstrom wrote:
I think everyone on
this list
should email them telling them that you are not renewing. I don’t
think they have any idea of ho
You forgot your hardware, Windows Server license, DNS server to
replace the crappy Windows one, backup software, prescanning and
address validating E-mail Gateway, multiple plug-ins for Declude, many
sleepless nights, etc., etc., etc.
Matt
Gary Steiner wrote:
Wow! It's like o
This pricing is just another way of saying "Go Away".
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
I hadn't noticed that before.
This webpage is pretty darn explicit, so yes, the pricing you quoted is
correct! From the bottom of the page that describes the
corporate lic
e gateway where the IMail port wouldn't matter. I would not
move Declude off of IMail for a gateway service installation.
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
Hi All,
I am
currently running IMail 8.15 HF2 and
Declude 4.1.0. I got new server hardware so it is time to do it all
o
Mark et al.,
SmarterMail shouldn't be leaving this trash around, and it shouldn't be
passing this trash to Declude. While having a work-around in Declude
is nice in lieu of a fix from SmarterMail, this really should be fixed
in SmarterMail if I am understanding the issues prope
that
works with Declude, and also with Alligate in front of Declude. See the
attachment.
Matt
---
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 b
ldn't be a long-standing pattern since it clearly is totally
ineffective.
Matt
Marc Catuogno wrote:
Is this
Broken spamware? I’ve
gotten a few of these over the past few days….
From: LEWIS MUSASIKE
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June
28, 2006
You don't want to filter for this. This is the standard encoding that
represents any GIF. It is not unique to this spammer, but rather it is
universal. It would be no different than filtering for "image/gif"
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
ANYWHERE 30 CONTAINS R0lGODdh1
s
asy way to bulk-mail, and that
people are apprehensive to block them. I'm sure that Sniffer has rules
for this sort of thing, though possibly not this particular source.
It's funny though how there isn't a single sentence in that Subject
that isn't cliché.
Matt
Marc Catuogn
a different character, similar to the bug in Declude
that is causing spam leakage with invalid Mail From characters.
Typically such software gets the name from the box. I'm not sure if
that name is somehow missing or inserted manually in the scripting.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
have them. I can't say for sure 100% though that this is the case here
due to circumstances, but I strongly suspect this is the trigger. If
IMail acted properly, the message would have been rejected, and that's
not a solution to your issues either, so the fix is likely best applied
to you
RCPT TO should all have only US-ASCII printable
characters (excluding space). Anything beyond that is invalid on it's
own, and IMO, the MTA should issue a 5xx error when received indicating
as much.
Matt
Harry Vanderzand wrote:
I am having a problem where the message-id is
malf
Hear hear!
Dave Doherty wrote:
Good the hear from you Scott! I hope things are well with 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 ht
rnal filter
support and deep customization), while at the same time I imagine they
seek to simplify administration for those with less time and interest,
and that they don't change for the worse the way the product is
licensed for those seeking high volumes."
It's not like we don&#x
e @, < and >.
I would also like to note that IMail and SmarterMail shouldn't be
accepting these invalid characters either.
Matt
David Barker wrote:
Ok, so you prompted me to a knee-jerk reaction ... Yes, we are still in
business :)
Currently investigating the problem. Again it
your examples) because it
isn't expecting the character and barfs on the data. Then this may in
turn be causing other unexpected behavior. Just guessing of course.
I would dig, but this stuff isn't coming through my gateway.
Matt
Markus Gufler wrote:
looking at another mails
issues. I'm wondering if maybe you are whitelisting them or
something??? Maybe it will show an error???
Matt
Markus Gufler wrote:
I'm 100% sure that I have exactly the same two actions defined in both
global.cfg and $default$.junkmail. They are there for several months now and
this
peak for almost everyone here.
Matt
John Shacklett wrote:
Matt, I did get a reply from Gerry
earlier and I resubmitted my earlier support email to him, and he
indicated they would escalate things, but that's it.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mat
Markus,
So based on the null sender, Declude is improperly assuming outgoing
instead of incoming...but you have actions defined in your Global.cfg
that also aren't being triggered?
Maybe the bug that is confusing the type of sender is also responsible
for bypassing the actions?
to now go on a goose chase
in my system trying to figure out if there is an issue without even
knowing exactly what it is. That wastes a lot of time when multiplied
by the dozens of people that might react the same way on this list to
such reports.
Thanks,
Matt
Glenn \ WCNet wrote:
27;t recall this ever happening with 2.x and before, so maybe it's a
change of behavior in 3+.
Declude???
Matt
Markus Gufler wrote:
(reposting the same message without attachments)
Hi
After reading this thread and have seen 3 spam messages in my inbox who has
final results-lines in the header
look into this further I'll probably report the
bug to Declude. I'm pretty sure that I have seen several other such
posts that might have been caused by this change in behavior.
Matt
Heimir Eidskrem wrote:
Why would no action been taken on this email.
We hold on 100.
From Declude
Title: Message
I found a video demonstrating a 'how to' when experiencing this problem.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5194053248358312500
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
That is probably the next
step. Good idea. Thanks.
-d
-
Origin
y me to say that
either :) In fact, it's a shame that neither one of us will even bring
up this thread for fear of violating some sort of imaginary rule about
what is proper and what isn't.
I do wish that you would learn to forgive and forget. There is so much
more good outside of dwelling on this.
As far as how appropriate the continued discussion is of Alligate, I
will, with no misgivings, never talk of it again if Declude even
suggests that it is not in their best interest to have it talked about
here.
Matt
that this should do it.
Matt
Will wrote:
Here is my
declude.cfg file:
#THREADS
15
THREADS
75
#WAITFORMAIL
Defined in milliseconds eg.
5000 = 5 seconds this can be changed to set the
#wait time
that decludeproc will wait
befor
Will,
You want to attach your Declude.cfg and not your Global.cfg. If you
haven't tweaked those settings, you will likely have issues at 140,000
per day. If you post it I'm sure that there will be some
recommendations that will take care of your issues.
Matt
Will wrote:
with your Declude.cfg
settings with the list and get some feedback.
Matt
Will wrote:
I have had a problem with my Imail server backlogging mail for years now
where the spool directory will fill with hundreds of thousands of
messages. Now it's the proc folder with the new version of de
ilable now, but you have the ability to tweak the settings whatever
way you wish according to your own standards.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Hi Matt -
I am still somewhat confused because you are painting a rather broad picture
about your success with Alligate, and not real
s a little dangerous to use without
supervision.
Matt
Kyle Fisher wrote:
That's what I am trying to figure out. I have never whitelisted our domain
or any individual account. So if it is whitelisting now I have a problem
somewhere.
Kyle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
e of accuracy and validate addresses. I
described many things about my ORF experiences too when that was the
only app in town that fit that bill to some extent. I'm certainly
guilty for being overly enthusiastic about this one. With the right
tools and not an enormous amount of work, most her
we are here.
Declude could easily plug into Alligate if they wanted to since it
supports dropping files into a directory instead of delivering them,
and then it will pick them up when the external app is done. I would
love to see that happen since I only need IMail as a container for
Declude. If there is still a widespread adversion to this discussion,
I would be happy to take it off-list.
Matt
not IMail/Declude) if there was interest in
seeing how this affects one's own results. Thankfully we can direct
different domains to different machines. Scott Fisher would be an
excellent candidate for this since he is really good with stats, so he
could paint a very clear picture of befor
s
possible during the SMTP envelope through the use of the 'pre-scanning'
gateway, and then do the heavy lifting with Declude. The one-box
solution saves money, and the gateway also saves money since it reduces
the burden of heavy lifting by reducing the volume.
Matt
Erik wrote:
M
tie launching threads to a CPU monitor instead of a fixed
number with no real clue as to what is perfect under any particular
situation.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
Hi Matt,
So you see any substantive performance improvement over 2x?
-Nick
Matt wrote:
Jay,
It's not about moving alon
k to the real topic...I'm just guessing that 30 messages/threads
is the limit for my box, but I'm sure that it isn't as high as 80,
though setting it at 80 would be of no consequence outside of a
prolonged heavy load caused by something like a backup of my spool. It
would be a bi
101 - 200 of 1491 matches
Mail list logo
