CTED] On Behalf Of Don Brown
AS> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 04:19 PM
AS> To: Matt
AS> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AS> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL skipping was ISBLANK is blank
AS> This wasn't a bug or a larger issue of Declude trust based upon the 'from
AS> Addr
Darrell LaRock wrote:
Matt,
But if you
rename the tests to DYN –
than how you are configuring non-DUL tests twice?
For DUL-type tests, I am only configuring them once, i.e.
DNSRBL-DYN dnsbl %IP4R%.dun.dnsrbl.net
127.0.0.3 0 0
N
Markus Gufler wrote:
But there are other tests like
FIVETEN-SRC that has had a wrong result in the same range for 9100
messages. The question is if FIVETEN-SRC allows a %IP4R% lookup.
They are all in fact IP4R lookups (if that is what the test is set
for). If you set Declude to s
20 (Business)Fax: +1 201 934-9206 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don BrownSent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 04:19 PMTo: MattCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL skipping was ISBLANK is blank This wasn't a bug or a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL
skipping was ISBLANK is blank
Bill,The value is in scoring the last hop hits higher than
prior hop hits. In this case, a hit on XBL for the last appropriate hop
(not IPBYPASSED) would result in 8 points (6 + 2), while a hit on a
3414 x20 (Business)
AS> Fax:+1 201 934-9206
AS> -Original Message-
AS> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AS> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Brown
AS> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 04:19 PM
AS> To: Matt
AS> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AS> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
14 x20 (Business)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Brown
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 04:19 PM
To: Matt
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL skipping was ISBLANK is blank
This wasn't
siness)
Fax:+1 201 934-9206
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Brown
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 04:19 PM
To: Matt
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL skipping was ISBLANK is blank
This wasn't a bug o
934-9206
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Brown
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 04:19 PM
To: Matt
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL skipping was ISBLANK is blank
This wasn't a bug or a larger issue of Declude tr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL skipping was ISBLANK is blank
> This wasn't a bug or a larger issue of Declude trust based upon the
> 'from Address.' There was no choice but to skip DUL/DYNA/DUHL tests
> (which we
This wasn't a bug or a larger issue of Declude trust based upon the
'from Address.' There was no choice but to skip DUL/DYNA/DUHL tests
(which were the only ones skipped) when the 'from address' was spoofed
as a local address. Imail 8 and WHITELIST AUTH help, but they don't
solve this issue, either
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 01:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] DUL skipping was ISBLANK is
blank
In absentia...
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg17162.html
This made a lot of sen
Title: Message
Thanks
- ouch.
I'd
say that's a bug in design.
Since
AUTH is supported in Imail 8 and since others may not allow local users to send
through their Imail server (my outbound is going through IIS SMTP with SMTP
AUTH), there should be AT LEAST a config option to turn this "s
In absentia...
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg17162.html
This made a lot of sense before, and it was the only way to disable DUL
tests for local users prior to IMail 8 and JunkMail ~1.76. Declude
won't disable the tests for gatewayed domains, only where an address
match
Title: Message
Scott
(in case you're not gone yet):
>> At this
moment, Declude will not apply scores from any dnsbl, ip4r or rhsbl tests if
they have either DUL, DYNA or DUHL in the name AND the Mail From matches a local
user. <<
Does
Declude REALLY trust the mail from and will bypass D
See below
Friday, May 14, 2004, 5:22:35 PM, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
M> Andy Schmidt wrote:
M> Matt,
M>
M> I think there is a misunderstanding (possiblyon MY side).
M>
M> >> DUL/DYNA/DUHL tests from hitting your ownlocal users when
M> they are sending E-mail (only one hop
Suite 203
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846
Phone: +1 201 934-3414
x20 (Business)
Fax: +1 201 934-9206
http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 02:41 PM
To
Title: Message
Matt,
I
think there is a misunderstanding (possibly on MY side).
>> DUL/DYNA/DUHL
tests from hitting your own local users when they are sending E-mail (only one
hop and typically dynamic/residential), Declude disables any dnsbl, ip4r or
rhsbl test when they have one of tho
Bill,
The value is in scoring the last hop hits higher than prior hop hits.
In this case, a hit on XBL for the last appropriate hop (not
IPBYPASSED) would result in 8 points (6 + 2), while a hit on a prior
hop would result in just 2 points. Note that the number of false
positives is much hig
> XBL(LAST)dnsbl%IP4R%.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.4
> 60
> XBL(ALL)ip4rsbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
> 127.0.0.420
Scott/Matt, would a configuration like above require multiple DNS queries
since the hostnames defined in the tests are no longer identical? Or
- Original Message -
From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> XBL(LAST)dnsbl%IP4R%.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.4
> 60
> XBL(ALL)ip4rsbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
> 127.0.0.420
Scott/Matt, would a configuration like above require multiple DNS queries
since
Don,
Since I started this thread, I'll try to answer what's at issue here.
Declude has functionality to only scan the last hop on any dnsbl, ip4r
and rhsbl test when it has either DUL, DYNA or DUHL in the name of the
test. This is done in order to protect you from scoring hits on
dial-up or
Friday, May 14, 2004, 11:36:22 AM, R. Scott Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I seem to have broken things worse :) Is there any reason why the
>>following wouldn't work?
>>
>>XBL(LAST)dnsbl%REMOTEIP%.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.4
>>60
>>
>>I tested the DUL lists
DOH!
And unfortunately I just finished backing out of the changes :) Thanks
for the clarification/correction.
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I seem to have broken things worse :) Is there any reason why the
following wouldn't work?
XBL(LAST)dnsbl%REMOTEIP%.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
I seem to have broken things worse :) Is there any reason why the
following wouldn't work?
XBL(LAST)dnsbl%REMOTEIP%.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.4
60
I tested the DUL lists using this format and it seemed to be
working. Here's the headers from a single hop test tha
Scott,
I seem to have broken things worse :) Is there any reason why the
following wouldn't work?
XBL(LAST) dnsbl %REMOTEIP%.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
127.0.0.4 6 0
I tested the DUL lists using this format and it seemed to be working.
Here's the headers from a single hop
26 matches
Mail list logo
