We upgraded to 8.21 and experienced an extremely slow smtp. It got so
bad that connecting MTA's we giving up and retrying, when the message
was actually received but Imail was too slow to acknowledge it.
We rolled back to 8.15. That was on a box running 2003 WEB edition.
We've since tested (o.k.)
Ok of course I upgraded and never thought to check this mailing list, I'm
trying to catch up, but what are the issues with Declude and Imail 8.2? Should
I disable declude?
Big reason I'm asking is I'm getting slow delivery, wondering if this is
because of 8.2 and declude not getting along?? I'm
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Heimir Eidskrem
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:11 AM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] IMail 8.2
>
>
> Yup, I am frustrated.
> I spent hours working on this problem over the weekend.
> We went down multiple
Yup, I am frustrated.
I spent hours working on this problem over the weekend.
We went down multiple times and got tons of complaints from clients.
I guess I missed the email from Declude to all clients notifying us
about this known error.
I went back and looked but couldnt find it.
I am also g
Heimir,
I understand everyone's level of frustration - I think THAT is actually a
constructive suggestion. We can't do anything about how long this take, but
at least people would feel treated fairly. I think your email deserves
serious consideration.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone: +1 201 934
Just wondering...if the Declude people are close to having this working yet?
I'm being forced to jump up to at least 8.1 because IPswitch hasn't patched
the IMAP vulnerability in the 8.05 that I am running. As long as I have to
renew the SA I wouldn't mind running their most up to date software 8
Good news. Thanks!
I'll try it out again, then.
-d
- Original Message -
From: "David Franco-Rocha [ Declude ]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Dave,
This was a problem when
. I believe that
SmarterTools has now rectified that.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
However, the contents of the HDR file are retai
- Original Message -
From: "David Franco-Rocha [ Declude ]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
See below.
David Franco-Rocha
- Original Message -
From: "David Sullivan&qu
See below.
David Franco-Rocha
- Original Message -
From: "David Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:28 PM
Subject: Re[6]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Hello David,
Friday, April 29, 2005, 4:55:53 PM, you wrote:
DFRD>
the message
should not be passed immediately to Declude.
David Franco-Rocha
- Original Message -
From: "Harry Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Hi David,
What is the recomme
Hello David,
Friday, April 29, 2005, 4:55:53 PM, you wrote:
DFRD> No, there is not an inherent delay in the delivery of all messages. If
DFRD> Declude does not complete processing within a specified time period,
DFRD> SmarterMail tries to take the file. However, if Declude finishes
processing
S
Junk folder.
Shayne
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Imail Admin
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:06 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
>
> We use D
riginal Message -
From: "David Franco-Rocha [ Declude ]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
> Declude does not currently plug directly into SmarterMail's spam tools.
They
> are compl
]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
No, there is not an inherent delay in the delivery of all messages. If
Declude does not complete processing within a specified time period,
SmarterMail tries to take the file. However, if Declude finishes processing
sooner, SmarterMail knows that the
On 4/29/05, David Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So there is an inherent delay in the delivery of all messages? How
> long?
Whatever you set it to be. Mine is 30 seconds.
--
--mattRobertson--
Janitor, MSB Web Systems
mysecretbase.com
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing
email immediately.
- Original Message -
From: "David Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Franco-Rocha [ Declude ]"
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:34 PM
Subject: Re[4]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Hello David,
Friday, April 29, 2005, 4:27:3
Hello Sanford,
SW> If it's just a file move to another location on the same volume, it
SW> should hardly be noticeable. A copy would be another story.
That's what I thought. But when disk I/O is already a big issue, it's
hard to add anything more.
--
Best regards,
David
Hello David,
Friday, April 29, 2005, 4:27:38 PM, you wrote:
DFRD> msg to Declude and, after a set period of time, tries to deliver it.
Taking
DFRD> it out of the spool prevents SmarterMail from grabbing the file until
DFRD> Declude has finished with it.
So there is an inherent delay in the deli
> This seems like twice the necessary disk activity over just
> processing it from the /spool folder.
If it's just a file move to another location on the same volume, it
should hardly be noticeable. A copy would be another story.
--Sandy
Sanford
out of the spool prevents SmarterMail from grabbing the file until
Declude has finished with it.
David Franco-Rocha
- Original Message -
From: "David Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 3:42 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 /
I downloaded the SM/Declude demo, thinking of moving from Imail. One
thing I noticed is that for each message, SM appeared to move it's
version of the D/Q files from spool, to a processing folder and then
process it. This seems like twice the necessary disk activity over
just processing it from the
lar folder on the basis of headers added
to the message by Declude.
David Franco-Rocha
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sidenote, I assume SmarterMail can act as a domain filtering gateway
with Declude, right? Pretty sure I saw some marketing spam saying it
could ..
Yes, that is absolutly correct - Declude will work on Smartermail.
On 4/28/05, Robert Grosshandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why didn't you point your CF server at smartermail?
It gave me an entirely separate mail engine. I have customers with
(legitimate) association mailing lists and in (small) part this lets
me split the load. SM could handle that load, b
Yup, I've seen that in your sig for years .. just never had a use for it. :)
Jonathan
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
No it does not have this feature built in but Sandy wrote some nifty
scripts that make this task a bit easier.
. . . see my sig for details.
--Sandy
---
> No it does not have this feature built in but Sandy wrote some nifty
> scripts that make this task a bit easier.
. . . see my sig for details.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-
vin Bilbee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:57 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sidenote, I assume SmarterMa
nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Seems like it'd be trivial to write, hooking their svcUserAdmin.asmx
and svcDomainAliasAdmin.asmx (GetAliases and GetUsers). Yeah, it'd be
nice if they d
Hi Jonathan-
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm really surprised their tech support folks
didn't recommend it.
-d
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
>
>
> Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >>Sidenote, I assume SmarterMail can act as a domain
> filtering gateway
> >>with Declude, right? Pretty sure I saw some marketing
Seems like it'd be trivial to write, hooking their svcUserAdmin.asmx and
svcDomainAliasAdmin.asmx (GetAliases and GetUsers). Yeah, it'd be nice
if they do it natively, but it looks like a 1 hour project to do it
"manually". Guess I wouldn't be too worked up about that.
Jonathan
Dave Doherty wro
You are right. IMail has no such feature, either. With Imail, I currently
take the user data right from the registry using the .NET registry classes,
reformat it, and send it on to my gateway. Of course, if you use an external
database with Imail you can run queries against that.
It just seems
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sidenote, I assume SmarterMail can act as a domain filtering gateway
with Declude, right? Pretty sure I saw some marketing spam saying it
could ..
Yes, that is absolutly correct - Declude will work on Smartermail.
So I was just playing with the SM web inte
CTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Does Smartermail have any features built in for gateway based systems
- i.e.
load a list of accounts that are valid that you gateway for en
feature just about
useless in my book.
-d
- Original Message -
From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Does Smartermail have any features built in for gatew
Queue Monitoring, SURBL/URI
integration, MRTG Integration, and Log Parsers.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
> Not the last time I asked for
> hmm .. .I think I'm confused. You're saying Imail has a way to load user
> accounts for gateway systems? All I've ever seen is the host file hack
> for adding gateway domains, but I've never seen a way to load user
> accounts. Am I missing something?
No it does not have this feature built in but
L PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Does Smartermail have any features built in for gateway based systems -
i.e.
load a list of accounts that are valid that you gateway for en
We're doing just that. Using SmartMail's web services we can generate a list of all accounts and aliases on the system. We then just script that list over to our Postfix on a set schedule.ShayneDoes Smartermail have any features built in for gateway based systems - i.e.load a list of accounts that
lf Of Matt Robertson
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:31 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
My Imail license is relegated to SMTP traffic generated by a ColdFusion
server. SmarterMail took over the public-facing mail chores shortly after
Ipswitch ki
situation. SPF also was already in SmarterMail...
Kevin Bilbee
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of IMail Admin
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:12 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkM
e in Imail 8.2? I've
always considered their IMAP support a little weak, and I'd be interested to
know if they've made any improvements.
Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Grosshandler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:22
://www.invariantsystems.com.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Jaworski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
The price for SM from Declude was great. Even better yet is SmarterMail, the
product. It w
My Imail license is relegated to SMTP traffic generated by a
ColdFusion server. SmarterMail took over the public-facing mail
chores shortly after Ipswitch killed Imail in favor of ICS.
Second the comment about the web interface. Its as if grownups
designed it versus hobbyists. Sounds harsh but
l still take it over Imail.
Shayne
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Robert Grosshandler
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:23 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
&
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Grosshandler
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:23 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Ok -- time for the question again.
Thumbs up or down on the declude / smartermail integration?
Comments apprec
Moved 3 installs from Imail to SM/DECLUDE.
Wish I would have done it sooner.
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Grosshandler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:22 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 / smartermail
Ok -- time for the question
Ok -- time for the question again.
Thumbs up or down on the declude / smartermail integration?
Comments appreciated.
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Hmmm...still would prefer to augment the functionality in Declude...
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 Beta
All this and more is available via Sp
ay, February 01, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 Beta
> Hi Darrell,
>
> I already have RegExp white and blacklists, just want the ability to
handle
> pattern matching against just the from address.
>
> Darin.
>
>
> - Original Message
9 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 Beta
> MessageCertainly did...hopefully provide an impetus towards adding new
>features and tests to Junkmaillike SURBL, and other requested features
>like better pattern matching for black/whitelist files.
I know this is not what you wan'
MessageCertainly did...hopefully provide an impetus towards adding new >features and tests to Junkmaillike SURBL, and other requested features >like better pattern matching for black/whitelist files.
I know this is not what you wan't to hear at this exact moment, but I have
an external applica
Sandy,
Thats how I read it as well.
Darrell
Sanford Whiteman writes:
Are you sure this is against SURBL. The way that is wrote indicates
that it could potentially be against something that they (Imail)
maintains.
I'm sure it's not against SURBL, but just against their existing
hy
Darrell:
Very valid points! I may have spoken too soon...
Now that I re-read this, I agree - the way it is written does make it sounds
as if it may be some internal table and as if this may be limited to
plain-text.
If you hunch is true that would render this pretty worthless.
Best Regards
An
ldcard the middle,
it would greatly simplify whitelist management.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:24 PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 Beta
Don't know if
everyone saw that.
Looks as if f
> Are you sure this is against SURBL. The way that is wrote indicates
> that it could potentially be against something that they (Imail)
> maintains.
I'm sure it's not against SURBL, but just against their existing
hyperlink normalizer and blacklist.
--Sandy
-
Yep, Declude really dropped the ball with their lack of URIBL support in
their latest release.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 8.2 Beta
Don't know
Looks as if for once, Imail may actually 'beat' Declude by supporting SURBL > natively.
o Ability to detect hyperlinks in plain text emails and check them against
the spam URL blacklist table.
Andy,
Are you sure this is against SURBL. The way that is wrote indicates that it
could potentially b
Title: Message
Don't know if
everyone saw that.
Looks as if for
once, Imail may actually 'beat' Declude by supporting
SURBL natively.
I'm curious if
they'll at least do SOME of those checks (such as SPF) during the SMTP session -
instead of accepting mail first.
New Features In Ver
60 matches
Mail list logo
