solutions, you have to
know the secret entry for some reason, so here it is:
http://www.supermicro.com/aplus/
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Supermicro has some really neat 1U 4xSATA servers now - we use a bunch of
the dual opteron ones here at our datacenter.
They would probably work nicely
. Minus the drives and software,
you can get the following system for about $1,500 shipped:
http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5015/SYS-5015P-8R.cfm
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
We are looking for a storage server to do our nightly backups to and our
desktop user backups.
1U Rack
1gig
Sorry, that was the SCSI system, this is the SATA system. The price
that I quoted includes the CPU, memory and SATA Raid card that you would
purchase separately:
http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5015/SYS-5015P-TR.cfm
Matt
Matt wrote:
Open-E makes a flash card pluggable
Kevin,
I believe that Windows Storage Server is only available from OEM's and
can't be purchased seperately.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
Price.
My budget is 3200 for the hardware and software. Our CFO and IT director
also has a requirement of windows server.
Kevin Bilbee
,
and should be more reliable. It can be integrated with AD. Unless you
are running Windows Storage Server and utilize some proprietary
feature, Open-E would be transparent to end-users.
http://www.open-e.com/nasxsr/network_attached_storage/NAS-XSR_comp_chart.php?lang=en
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote
filters in order to avoid false positives.
Matt
Dave Beckstrom wrote:
We're getting an annoying amount of Viagra spam which currently contain a
link to one of these two sites:
lanseislan.com
cessofanne.com
Both domains resolve to 61.233.42.4 which is owned by CHINA RAILWAY
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
it is a hugely important
service as well as being the one most often exploited. I would also
deeply appreciate more attention being paid to fixing known bugs and
undesirable behavior with existing functionality.
Matt
John Shacklett wrote:
Yes, David, I understand, and thanks for the reply
that they were fixed in the more recent
release(s).
Matt
Mike Wiegers wrote:
I'm find that Declude doesn't take the proper actions. One test is setup to
delete when it reaches a certain weight and Declude doesn't delete them, it
passes them through.
-Original Message-
From: On Behalf Of Matt
mmendation for a whitelist
file which only accepts one type of data.
Matt
John Pearson wrote:
Hi,
I saw in the archives that the
whitelist limit is 200 lines in the global.cfg file. Yesterday I found
that out the hard way, by increasing it above that limit. The whitelist
appear
Send him to Remax :)
Matt
Marc Catuogno wrote:
The sasser worm seems to ignore local networks and was only trying to get to
external IPs. I tried ethereal and got no probes on the local net. I did
lock down 445 external but the Xincom has really weak logging so I couldn't
get any info
is also no longer supported and it would be wise to upgrade for
security reasons.
Matt
Evans Martin wrote:
Does
anyone have any experience running CF 4.5 on IIS6? We upgraded our
servers to
Windows Server 2003 over the weekend and it has broken ColdFusion.
What needs
to be done
you could always copy the executable
over from Windows 2003 if needed.
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
What is defining %%f?
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall find!"
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Be
Suck city!
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
Only comes
on Windows Server 2003 SP1 or
above.
Tried
running it on Windows Server 2000
and it errored saying target system must be running Windows XP or above.
John T
eServices
For You
"Seek,
and ye shall
John,
Actually, it's in the Windows 2000 Resource Kit. You can download the
executable from the following page instead of installing the entire
package:
http://www.petri.co.il/download_free_reskit_tools.htm
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
Only comes
on Windows Server 2003 SP1
find that RAID 5 with 5 drives can easily handle
100,000 files in a matter of seconds, but it seems to get worse with
more files in a sort of exponential rate.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
I agree with the changes advised in this thread for registry settings.
Let me point out
Title: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Banks (and Ebay) Phising Filters
I see this guy regularly. It's kind of like phishing. He moves around
from site to site sending out gif.exe's, pretending they are greeting
cards. I don't see much volume, though it is steady and has been for
months.
Matt
Dan,
The code is sort of bitmasked in a way (using hex values). So these
codes actually reflect combinations. There are literally hundreds of
combinations.
Matt
Dan wrote:
I've been able to assemble these valid codes
http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php?code=c020040c
http
Traffic Grapher from Paessler.com would do that.
WebTrends Live might be an option for the highest trafficked sites
instead of fully replacing your log analyzer due to scalability alone.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
I've been running LiveStats ISP, but it's been terribly buggy
under the website, and configure an exclusive group as having
permissions for the Declude directory.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Practically speaking, the security risks related to parent paths are
near zero. On scale of 0 to 100, having parent paths enabled would be a
.01
path can access critical or
confidential files outside the root directory of the
application."
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Wrongg.
Enabling parent paths doesn't allow you to actually enter ../../../../../ and transverse directories into your URL string!
http://support.micr
explicitly defined permissions to access the required files. This
is not a big deal to do.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
Install url scan and use the IIS lockdown tool.
this will stop all ../../../ attacks dead in their tracks. Rerardless
of the parent pathssetting.
Kevin Bilbee
default permissions and disable Parent
Paths by default in IIS 6.0.
I'm surprised that there was any debate about this whatsoever.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Hello Matt -
With all due respect, if NTFS permissions are not configured properly then you
have many, many
the PERCENT test might be warranted.
Matt
Orin Wells wrote:
Interesting.
Buried in among the 87 email addresses was one with a typo that added
an extra @ in a bad place. [EMAIL PROTECTED]@aol.com for example. It was
32nd on the list but apparently this was enough to trip up Declude
setup by being
more efficient about the things that I do. Some things like running AV
after JM can save noticeably.
Matt
David Sullivan wrote:
Does anyone have any direct comparison of CPU usage from a real world
installation between Imail 8.15 and SM 3.x running
Declude/FProt/Sniffer
detail because I wouldn't have left myself open to this if I had known
about the potential of issues. This is exactly why it is so incredibly
important for a software company to be completely transparent and
extraordinary detailed when it comes to bugs and fixes.
Matt
Orin Wells wrote:
I
PROTECTED], and it appears that it was. That suggests that you
are either an open relay, or that you were hacked. I believe that IMail
7.07 has some unpatched IMAP vulnerabilities that many were hacked by
way of.
Matt
Orin Wells wrote:
It appears the cause for my imail jamming problem
/text only message, to do some bracket
replacement in order to keep plain/text elements from becoming
functional in the HTML view.
Showing a message that is plain/text as HTML is fine just so long as
they replace the brackets.
Matt
Gary Steiner wrote:
I can't get SmarterTools to see thi
as is indefinitely.
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
I have had similar experiences with them right back to the beginning.
I think the quality of the service you get varies greatly with the
individual. If they get it the response is usually pretty good. It
does not always seem easy to get them to get
don't have to create any pages for this site, it will
take anything to that old URL as well as any sub-directory of it and
redirect it to your new webmail site.
Matt
John Shacklett wrote:
I'm making the jump to a new mailserver this weekend, and I've hit two
snags. I know that the answers
it can be in
SmarterMail webmail if it is working the way that you reported.
Matt
Gary Steiner wrote:
It is interesting how SmarterMail's web mail interprets Dave's message. It
sees the META statement in his message as embedded code, and runs it when I
read the message.
---
This E
the ability to shape
bandwidth per port.
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
Hi, all-
I'll be providing VOIP and Internet service to five to ten other
tenants in the building I will be moving into in a couple of months.
I'm looking for a way to provide limited bandwidth to each port,
preferably
after every reboot. You would be best
served by purchasing Simple DNS (http://www.simpledns.com/) which
doesn't have this issue, or having a Linux based DNS server of your
own. No matter what, it is a bad idea to use someone else's DNS server
for RBL lookups.
Matt
Gary Steiner wrote
running experience the same
issues. Note that I don't run AD on any of these boxes.
Matt
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Matt,
Is this true even if you manually set the reg key versus doing it with
dnscmd?
Darrell
Matt writes:
Gary,
Let me confuse things a bit more here. I would
in the past and I hope
that it continues to work itself out without the need for anyone to come
in here and lay down the law, and of course without the need to
continually discuss such matters.
Matt
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E
their offering multiple times over the last 5 years.
Thanks for the info.
Matt
Shayne Embry wrote:
Matt,
I think as you continue your investigation you'll find that Microsoft
states the only type of "legal" licensing for hosting services is the
Service Providers License. We discovered this
in
the body of the message, it doesn't look like it is scanned. This of
course came up last week again. It seems like the bug is
long-standing, but the spammers are failing it more often.
Matt
David Dodell wrote:
John,
good point, didn't "catch" that ... yep, Declude is missing them al
nforceable is an open question.
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
Matt, my
understanding is that is the
server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and
therefore is not
dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is
dedicated
for one client, whether t
/declude.junkmail@declude.com/msg28338.html
As I pointed out, this license issue affects everyone that offers a
service of any sort from a Windows platform. It's not like I'm sharing
recipes...though I'm sure that has happened before around here.
Matt
Craig Edmonds wrote:
um I thought
this point if they tried to
press the matter, however, in the future, things may be different and
it is clear that they are laying the ground work for that.
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
That is
where the question comes in. I
am not hosting a client or providing a client a service o
prices are going down. At least the hardware is dropping in price to
offset part of this trend.
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
On the one
hand, if it that was upheld
as true as you say and enforceable, do you think that would help get
rid of all
those fly-by-night hosting companies out
don't want to get trapped by
Microsoft's licensing going forward.
Matt
Robert E. Spivack wrote:
Matt,
get the facts before you rant.
If you
are running a business then
you should be adhering to the rules. I cant believe you have been
hosting sites/email services for so long
$12/month for Windows 2003 Web Edition, but I am not
sure what the rest of the pricing might be.
Please respond off list if you don't feel it is appropriate for a public
forum.
Thanks,
Matt
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail
http://postmaster.msn.com/cgi-bin/dasp/postmaster.asp?ContextNav=TShooting#doc
Their process is listed in that page.
Due to your issues, it might be wise to pay the extortion fee charged by
Bonded Sender since providers like Hotmail do honor Bonded Sender.
Matt
Marc Catuogno wrote
will
soon change to another product and I'm not sure if I am also going to be
affected by this.
Matt
Erik wrote:
John,
What David said was in plain text. Did you read it? Quote: This would be v
3.0.6 (since it does not appear you have upgraded to v 4). And my response
was why he mentioned
an import
from text file, or in real-time (with caching) by SMTP where the
gateway validates addresses by connecting to IMail (or whatever you
use).
Matt
Erik wrote:
I agree with you Matt that these type of flaws should be treated with top
priorities rather a feature enhancement request. To us
clude plug-in won't work. Besides that, it would only be a
partial implementation of true SRS since the MTA needs to be aware in
order to prevent forgeries.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Hey, Nick.
I spent some timepoking at this
with a stick.
Since I just use IMail as a
gateway
will disagree with some of this, but
let's just agree to disagree and spare the list from less productive
discussions.
Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Using other's mailing lists for support and public documentation, ldap, VBS
scripts. And free vs. free and both IMHO are equal amounts of spam
responding to my thread. I
that they are not very used to people wanting to change things like
default directories, but naturally it makes sense to not want
everything on your C: drive. With defaults I'm sure it works
flawlessly.
Matt
Jeff Robertson wrote:
Declude wouldn't even install for us
and therefore stronger in
comparison.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
"I will think about a special
filter test with a keyword what should be able to get rid of more of
this SPAM."
Goran, I suggest that making a
"combo" test that awards more weight when both Mess
quot; also included aliased E-mail.
One alternative would be to just add a header with Declude and use
IMail rules to move the messages into a sub-folder. That will work
with anything that lands on your server, including forwarded E-mail.
Matt
Kami Razvan wrote:
Hi;
I
am seeing
in coming if it ever gets here at all.
IMO, real-world issues demand real-world solutions.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
Email customers that forward through me are getting their email
bounced because of the original sending domain's spf policy. I
understand this delima is addressed with Sender Rewriting
be globally available any time soon.
I suggest you tell your customer that they can't forward their E-mail
reliably unless surfglobal.net removes their SPF restrictions, and
there is nothing that you can do about it.
SPF is not a magic bullet.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
The problem is not anything I
y progress at fixing those issues, and there are now several
competing sender validation mechanisms, all of which are flawed in one
way or another. The technology is all ridiculously short-sighted.
It's a problem and not a solution.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
Matt wrote:
Real-world issu
and
COPYTO actions override the DELETE functionality.
So will this work in your config? Well, it all depends on your exact
config from the weight and weightrange settings in the Global.cfg to
the actions that you have applied in your JunkMail files.
Matt
Kami Razvan wrote:
Thanks
network, and they are concentrated in the Northeast. I'm pretty sure
that they give good service.
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
We're moving to Worcester, MA, and I am looking for a provider for a
couple of T1's.
I have a quote from Speakeasy. $800/mo for a bonded pair on a one-year
contract
that this is in reference to the discussion on the list about
missing/broken headers and zombie spam. Even though the messages are
broken, Declude is clearly not handling them properly and it should be
fixed.
Thanks for following up. Please share whatever else you find with the
list.
Matt
Erik wrote
it for the IP encoded in the renamed files and the spool file
location. It is hard coded to expect to see a directory called hold2
under the spool. I'm not sure if Declude has changed this, but that's
an easy edit.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/decludefilters/beta/
Matt
Todd Richards wrote
be that it
was scanned and Declude just failed to insert the headers. I don't
know.
Thanks,
Matt
Erik wrote:
The problem that we've
seen this "spammer" is that the image is corrupted as you mentioned...
and Declude is exiting; thus why it's being allowed to be delivered.
&quo
the full
source of one such E-mail and check your logs for an entry that
matches, and clarify which version you are running.
Thanks,
Matt
Erik wrote:
Yes, they are passing SNIFFER and Darrell's
INV-URIBL at this time. But what Evans wrote is true. Either this
"spammer" has
Title: Message
There is also a longstanding bug in at least Declude Virus that has
issues with very long base64 encoding. I have seen no reports that
this was fixed. I am wondering in this case whether or not the bug is
now being exploited by spammers also.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy
that the drive and data is perfectly fine and just had it's
boot sector wiped out.
I'll bet that Andrew has some nifty hints along these lines too.
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
I was installing a new workstation with XP Pro, and I had a USB drive
connected to it. I guess that was stupid. Anyway
ch I assume included the first example
that you provided. This also saves processing power since WHITELIST
AUTH disables most tests in JunkMail.
Matt
Orin Wells wrote:
Clearly I am missing something here. I am still wrestling
with the
SPAMHEADERS issue but with a different sender. This time
in the Global.cfg.
Matt
Douglas A. White wrote:
We have a central email account that receives incoming mail and also
forwards them to a couple of other in-house addresses.
Declude is properly forwarding spam into a \spam folder for the various
criteria we've set in the $default$.junkmil file for the main
could be updated by checking ARIN for Webair and
then cross checking that IP space in Senderbase.org just to make sure
there aren't issues with false positives. A quick check shows that I am
probably missing a block or two.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
What is known about this ISP
OrgName
just deleting or
moving the message file with the script instead of filtering it with
Declude.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Certainly not for all mail, just for
these circumstances... but I understand you want to avoid situations
where this is done accidentally.
I think a couple
One other thing. PREWHITELIST OFF should have the same affect of
allowing tests to be run (the default). It is PREWHITELIST ON I thin
that was broken. Setting PREWHITELIST OFF will cause more load, but
you can safely use that setting to have scripts always run.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote
Darin,
Since this is for internal users, I'm guessing that they are
whitelisted and therefore any Declude actions wouldn't work, and they
probably wouldn't want to turn the whitelisting off.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Nope. Implement as an external
test, then make a combo filter
tion. There are a few of us around here that have
done _vbscript_ plug-ins for Declude, and it can be confusing if you
don't fully understand what is going on, yet very powerful if you can
figure it out.
Matt
Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Hi,
I can not do it, I'm not that good
with
That was fixed in the version that Bonno is running (2.0.6.16). I have
also tested things and found that it will accept pretty much unlimited
characters in a command line argument, so there is no danger in passing
in %RECIPIENTS% to the script through Declude.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote
. This used to not be the case. It will
whitelist the message though, it just won't skip running the tests.
Maybe it was fixed in a 3.x release, but I haven't seen any mentions of
it being addressed.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
E... that'll popup the CPU time.
-
Original Message
.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
In 3.x WHITELIST IP does skip the
tests.
I have very rare occurances (10 this
month) where some WHITELIST AUTH do have tests run but the weight is
set to 0. (3.0.5.23)
-
Original Message -
From:
Matt
To:
Declude.JunkMail
I suppose then it is fixed. Broken somewhere in 2.x and fixed
somewhere in 3.x. There are no release notes mentioning having fixed
this however. This fix is something that I desired and would help to
compel me to move to 3.x.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
I didn't check that. I just
different. I
think this was supposed to be a reflection of throwing out what NetIQ
had done to the code, but it took me about an hour to figure out what
was going on. I hear they are working hard on 6.x right now :)
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, it's time for all of us at Declude to face
Move the whitelist setting to a custom filter and place an END on the
filter for the condition that you want to track elsewhere:
MAILFROM END IS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
REMOTEIP WHITELIST IS 12.34.56.78
Have a good evening,
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
I
need to create a filter
felt compelled to
move to selling the software as a yearly service if this was the case.
Matt
Harry Vanderzand wrote:
You guys go on and on.
Have you actually talked to
Declude?
There are no changes for you if
you do not want them.
And Moving to V4 is easy.
You must
of the product, at least to me. If
that is not the case, you might want to clarify that on your site.
Thanks,
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last 10 days we have received a number of inquiries to the email
sent to every customer explaining the changes that are happening here at
Declude
need). Naturally,
people should do due-diligence before upgrading or migrating,
especially on a brand new major release.
Matt
Kevin Bilbee wrote:
Does anyone know if SmarterMail has Program aliases. I have checked the docs
and am going back and forth with SmarterTools sales
Scott,
These were introduced one at a time based on Scott's interest and proof
of a need (or so it seemed). I think that you might have nailed down
the list pretty good, or at least those three are the ones that I am
familiar with. NOTSTARTSWITH of course makes sense as an addition.
Matt
I'm looking at going back to Declude with the release of SM 3.0.
First thing I saw on the Declude home page is something called a BOUNDRY LAYER
Saw the same spelling error repeated on another graphic.
I can't be the only guy to have noticed this, I would think. The
signature graphic explaining
Block by default, whitelist exceptions. They have a lot of spam lists,
but also do some mailings for legitimate companies.
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
What do others have about this sender?
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses
Declude to reprocess. You
should test this out with a message before going full-tilt, especially
since I don't run 3.x and I could have this wrong.
Matt
David Sullivan wrote:
I need to reprocess messages through Declude that have already been
HELD but can't remember how Declude knows it has
traps (kind of like digging a pothole in front of your
tire store). I really hate it when customers (end-users) are taken
advantage of in this way.
Matt
Robert E. Spivack wrote:
I'm not sure about that - I think a lot of the hardcore spammers (and I mean
that both figuratively and literally
My best guess would be that he is just trying to validate addresses in
his database of realtors so that he can sell them to others or spam them
with niche content.
Matt
Marc Catuogno wrote:
Same name? Personalized to the agent name? Also through RR in VA? I'm
still interested in exactly
New Service Would Charge E-Mail Senders
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180id=2006020521220001389466
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Two of the world's biggest e-mail account
providers, Yahoo Inc. and America Online, plan to introduce a
service that would charge senders a fee to
by these services because
Yahoo and AOL are difficult or even impossible for them to deal with
when users repeatedly report legitimate E-mail for being spam, and 2)
spammers, yep, AOL and Yahoo now want to get in on the BondedSender
model and profit from spamming.
Matt
Dave Doherty wrote:
I'd like
moments.
Matt
Erik wrote:
And this has what to do with the influx of immigrants from Russia to Czech
Republic?
My statement was a joke. Notice the " ;-) " at the end.
However, giving the fact that Declude is in the business of SPAM control,
this should have been preven
:)
And for clarification, I did read the follow-ups, and that was a joke.
I don't always read things the right way myself.
Matt
Erik wrote:
Matt,
I see that now. It was WHITELISTED as it is
shown in the headers. So someone has guessed the AUTH to Declude or
they (DECLUDE) are WHITELISTing
system.
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
Hi,
Is there any performance benefit of using an
IPFILE lookup vs a
REMOTEIP lookup?
Is there any consensus of which option would
be better to use to
subtract some weight from a good mail?
I am looking into this as I have some mail
that do the same things
over and over again. You can do something like 30 bitmasked result
codes this way. You should search the archives for this list for more
information if you get to the point of trying this out.
Matt
Evans Martin wrote:
I would like to try my hand at
writing
had listed there if you wish. They are at least educational in terms
of what you can do with Declude's native filtering. Scott Fisher also
has a page up that lists several good resources for filters including
some plug-ins. I can't recall the link though.
Matt
Evans Martin wrote:
I
Oh geeze, have I changed that much? I'm still drunk and high, just
busier wasting time on other things :)
Matt
Bill Landry wrote:
Don't know if you would want to use
them, even if they were available, as the writer was high on life and
drunk with enthusiasm most of the time
Apparently according to the HOPHIGH parameter as you initially posted
also.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
FYI
I finally nailed down some proof
that IPFILE does check multiple hops.
222.140.230.131 is not in the IPFile
205.158.62.0/24 is in the IPFile.
Received
a money maker at all. Even programs like
Sniffer has some potential of competing with Declude, though both are of
course stronger as a result of working together. It would be good for
Declude to offer a gateway solution of some sort or find a partner to do so.
Matt
Sanford Whiteman wrote
, is that
hyperthreading is a huge benefit to Declude, and it should follow that
having as many physical and virtual CPU's as possible is much more
important than maxing out the CPU speed. Quite literally, a single
hyperthreaded 3GHz CPU is as good as two 3GHz CPU's with no hyperthreading.
Matt
of some of it.
Matt
Agid, Corby wrote:
Actually, I'm still running
2.0.5. I suppose that I should probably upgrade, eh?
I don't actually delete mail at
any score. I use the header information in my email client to sort the
incoming messages. Other than this particular bugger
Declude.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
Agid, Corby wrote:
Actually, I'm still running
2.0.5. I suppose that I should probably upgrade, eh?
I haven't. I'm on 2.16
Other than this particular
bugger, it's worked well for me.
it is odd to me
are in the body and your rule in your client is looking for
headers where they belong, that would explain why your filter isn't
working.
Matt
Agid, Corby wrote:
Well I'm somewhat more
confused as I don't really know what "bad folding" means. However, I
don't see any of the
headers may vary in different
versions of Declude.
For a 2.0.6.16 download, it appears that you will have to ask Declude
directly for this or do the bigger upgrade to 3.x.
Matt
Agid, Corby wrote:
Hi
Matt,
I'm not using any MS
gateway on this. The mail comes into Imail/declude
or the bottom of the
body.
Matt
Agid, Corby wrote:
Ok, thanks very much. I'll see
if they'll get me the latest 2.x version to see if that works. Can
you clarify somethingare you saying that you're receiving mail from
the same spammer that's causing my problem, but your system
Just the last hop following IPBYPASS.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
Does the IPFILE test check just the last
hop or all hops up to your HOPHIGH parameter?
-
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
191 S Gary
201 - 300 of 1396 matches
Mail list logo
