There is definately something happening. Currently we are seeing a mailing
which boasts of 400 million mails being sent promoting some penny stock with
the symbol is CSYT, company name Communications Synergi Technology.
I found out the hard way, because they are using my personal address as
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tandem Group
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 2:11 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] High smtp traffic
There is definately something happening. Currently we are
seeing a mailing
Title: Message
I agree. We build
our config file from an external interface, and if we have anything added
manually or from another source, it will be overwritten the first time we make
changes through our interface.
Erik
Erik Hjelholt, Managing DirectorAlberni-dot-Net, a div. of
Tandem
These jerks are
so unresponsive that we decided to go tit-for-tat, i.e. we now block them as
well. We have apparently been caught in a wider IP block by them and have been
unable to clear it up.
In fact, they are
so knowledgable that when one of their customers in Florida contacted them
I am not entirely sure what the log entries mean for Habeas. I have changed
from the whitlisting to a standard test as follows:
HABEAS habeas x x 0 10
What I get is a log entry like this:
nHABEAS:10
It was intended to reduce the total if a Habeus warrant mark was
Should that not be either * for anything, or 127.0.0.2? The latter is what
spamhaus.org lists on their site.
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 13:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott,
I just have to jump in here, because I raised the issue of the multiple
recipients a short while ago, and my understanding was that if one
receipient sets an action on a message, that action will also be performed
on the message to all other receipients. I have seen that happen with
I am having a whitelistfile problem with a mailing list. There are the odd
messages which get caught in our regular tests and I need to whitelist the
address. The X-Declude-Sender: line is as follows:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
where the second set of numbers change for each message. I don't know about
Thanks. I guess there is a fairly low probability of seeing mainstream spam
from a mailing list, so I will use your suggestion.
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2003 09:25
To: [EMAIL
I have a concern with messages to multiple recipients where the action
chosen by a single recipient is used on others.
In one case, a message was sent to nine recipients (eight in the Bcc) and
one of the Bcc recipients is signed up for our spam control, but another is
seeing the action, in this
Scott:
That would, in my view, be quite a serious problem for anyone using per-user
settings, and I hope you can find a way to deal with it.
I suppose the upside is that some customers will see the Subject add-on and
call and ask 'what's this?' giving us an opportunity to sell our spam
control
Scott:
We are having a bit of a problem with the per user whitelist and would like
to confirm the format for setting up the file in the user's user.junkmail
file. Is this the correct format?
WHITELISTFILE E:\IMail\Declude\domain.com\user-whitelist.txt
Also, is there any chance of
Thanks Scott.
I'll chase the problem a bit more.
With respect to the manual: yes, I am aware that the archives are a great
help, but they are occasionally down and, in at least one case, the
declude.junkmail archive has a major hole in it taking out several days
worth of messages and can
PROTECTED]
This does work:
FROMWebMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tandem Group
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2003 10:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Whitelistfile syntax
Scott:
Well, maybe that is why we are having problems. We are working with the
WHITELISTFILE option, not the global WHITELIST option. Perhaps we are
working under the wrong assumptions but we rather expected that the syntax
in the WHITELISTFILE would be the same as that for the WHITELIST option.
Scott:
Here's a partial header from a message and it shows clearly that the spam
test failed was IPNOTINMX
X-Declude-Spoolname: D809c2823013c78d3.SMD
X-Note: This E-mail was sent from tandem.alberni.net ([64.141.6.11]).
X-Note: This E-mail was scanned for spam by Declude JunkMail.
Well yes, but if I see the IPNOTINMX as failed in the header, should it not
also show in the log? The nNOLEGITCONTENT was the *only* entry in the log.
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, August 29,
Here's what I did with the comments: I created the following tests
COMMENTS20 comments20 x 10 0
COMMENTS40 comments40 x 10 0
COMMENTS60 comments60 x 10 0
COMMENTS80 comments
That's right. Each is incremental, so if you have 75 comments it will give a
weight of 10+10+10=30
You may wish to change the weight assigned for each to suit your
circumstances. We use a weight system at approx. twice the default ones in
order to arrive at a safe delete point of 100.
for the
test. I don't see the comments test documented on the
JunkMail manual site
yet, so Scott, please correct me if I am wrong.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Tandem Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail
We have just put our own web interface on-line. Have a look at
https://ss.alberni.net/spamcontrol/Login.asp
The userid is 'declude' and the password is 'junkmail'. I'll leave that
address up for a couple of days but don't nobody start spamming from it.
:-)
We have also written a management
I would be interested as well, thank you.
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of i360 Support
Sent: Friday, August 1, 2003 09:14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Report System
Please add me too.
Would
Any progress on the new manuals? We are holding off completing a user
interface until we can go through the current JM manual, just in case there
is something new that will impact it.
Erik
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This
Scott:
While there is a per domain/per user WHITELISTFILE feature, I do not see a
BLACKLISTFILE feature that works per domain/per user.
Is this something which is under consideration?
We would like to offer our customers limited access to blacklisting
individual addresses, and it would be much
Scott:
Just need to confirm that the omission of a test and its associated action
in the .junkmail files will by default set the action for that test as
IGNORE.
Thanks,
Erik
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from
Well, Declude certainly works as it caught this message. :-)
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rob Salmond
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 08:54
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Regarding Obfuscation
26 matches
Mail list logo
