Has anyone heard of this list? I haven't been able to find any
information about it.
We just got this back as the reason for a bounced message:
Connected to 204.146.55.140 but greeting failed (1).
Remote host said: 550 216.82.255.83 blocked by mr.rbl -> 557 RBL block
by MR.RBL - Bouncer (2004081
The docs say a in the filename used with LOGFILE will be replaced
with the month and day. Is there a way to get the year -- four
(preferred) or two digit -- included?
You could use something like:
LOGFILE spool\dec2004.log
That way, you'd only have to remember to change
Sharyn Schmidt wrote:
Sorry, folks, to attach spam to an email but this is driving me NUTS.
No matter what I do, I can't seem to block this!
Is anyone else successfully blocking this one?
Try:
BODY ## CONTAINS www.madedcd.com
in a text filter, where ## is the weight you want to use.
I use a text filter.
The rules I use are:
SUBJECT 40 CONTAINS =?ISO-8859-1?b?
SUBJECT 40 CONTAINS =?ISO-8859-1?q?
SUBJECT 40 CONTAINS =?koi8-r
SUBJECT 40 CONTAINS =?iso-2022-jp?q?
SUBJECT 40 CONTAINS =?windows-1251?B?
There's been some debate on this. I've personally NEVER seen a
legitimate mess
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
How can you decode the encoded subject lines so as to see what it is and
then create a filter?
Things like:
=?ISO-8859-1?b?RUVOVCBjaGVjayBzdG9jayBjaGFydA==?=
=?ISO-8859-1?b?RUVOVCBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIFByb2dyZXNz?=
=?ISO-8859-1?B?SGk=?=
I've only been able to seen the a
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I just noticed that all we're getting for IP addresses with these two
versions is 0.0.0.0.
Example:
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [0.0.0.0]
After going back to 1.76i1, we're getting a real IP address.
Example:
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [156.21.1.21]
C
R. Scott Perry wrote:
Note that with v1.76, you can just run the Declude.exe file without
any arguments and it will display the version.
Only from a prompt, unless you're a very fast reader. :)
Mike
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-
I just noticed that all we're getting for IP addresses with these two
versions is 0.0.0.0.
Example:
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [0.0.0.0]
After going back to 1.76i1, we're getting a real IP address.
Example:
X-Declude-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [156.21.1.21]
Anyone else seeing this?
W
Scott,
Just out of curiousity, is there anyway you folks could include a
version resource in declude.exe
to make it possible to determine the version number without having to
use declude -diag?
IMHO, being able to use explorer file properties would be very handy.
Mike
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I
uld have otherwise gotten through
on my machine.
We got about 10 of these for V-pill over the weekend, that's why I set
it up. I haven't seen any legitimate email get caught by this filter,
but we don't normally get email from any non-English speaking countries
(unless it&#x
with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.02) id A542E80120; Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:27:30 -0400
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:27:32 -0400
From: Mike Leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, e
Frederick Samarelli wrote:
Any suggestion on how to block these.
Thanks.
Use a text filter and add something like:
SUBJECT 40 CONTAINS =?ISO-8859-1?b?
to it.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Markus Gufler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 20
After I found a problem and corrected a problem with the postmaster
alias and added an abuse alias, I was able to successfully send email to
both addresses from an external account.
How exactly does one get rid of the failures/warnings for these items?
How long does it take?
Mike
---
[This E
13 matches
Mail list logo
