Mmm:-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 4:55 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Linked in
Sorry, but can't resist...
Any one have
Has a lot of members I know
Barry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 4:10 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Linked in
Any one have opinions good/bad on
Sorry, but can't resist...
Any one have opinions good/bad on www.linkedin.com?
Has a lot of members I know
Barry
Is that good or bad?
;-)
John T
eServices For You
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
Wouldn't Whitelist Auth stop JMPro from testing outgoing mail?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Robertson
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] @LINKED IPLINKED v1.0.2 - Great
Marc Catuogno wrote:
Wouldn't Whitelist Auth stop JMPro from testing outgoing mail?
Unless I'm mistaken, whitelisting makes something automatically pass all
tests. It doesn't prevent the tests from being run.
Besides, the mailing is being generated by ColdFusion 4.5, which doesn't
support SMTP
Marc Catuogno wrote:
Wouldn't Whitelist Auth stop JMPro from testing outgoing mail?
Unless I'm mistaken, whitelisting makes something automatically pass all
tests. It doesn't prevent the tests from being run.
Actually, with the latest beta and IMail v8, you can use PREWHITELIST ON
and WHITELIST
Is 176i26 considered beta or do I need the file that -diag as 176b?
At 12:10 PM 11/21/2003, Scott wrote:
Actually, with the latest beta and IMail v8, you can use PREWHITELIST ON
and WHITELIST AUTH, which will prevent the tests from being run on
authenticated E-mail.
--
Burzin Sumariwalla
Any version with an i in it is an interim release (pre-beta or alpha,
as they are sometimes called). The i indicates that it was released
after the beta/release in the number. For example, if a release or beta is
v8.99, and you have 8.99i1, it is an interim release that came out after 8.99.
Great job Matt - again!
One question though - should there be an ANTI-IPLINKED file? You mention one in your
notes but I did not see one in the archive.
-Nick
-- Original Message --
From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick,
I didn't update the notes when I moved a group of entries from that file
to the other, and when I move those things, it eliminated the need for
the ANTI-IPLINKED filter. There are FP's possible with IPLINKED, but
there is no way to counterbalance them in a generic manner, and they
I should have tested this better before publishing, but I introduced
errors in both files, one that could score @LINKED on some forwarded
E-mails, and one that could credit too much back to to those same
messages. The net result was only 2 points extra scored on such an FP
or 3 points
The problem with body filters is the big performance hit the server takes in
high volumes setups.
Comments?
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew
Yep, I try to use them very sparingly, myself.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] @LINKED IPLINKED v1.0.2 - Great for scam
detection
The problem
To save on processing, you can do the following:
@LINKED - Chop out the ccTLD's and only leave the gTLD's (over 200 lines
saved). Also, you can also shorten all of the IP w/@ strings to just
two numbers (10 through 99, be sure to include 10 and remove the dots)
which would save another 150
Lite versions of the mail filter files are now included for both filters
in the same zip file (no version changes). Just use the alternate files
in place of the main filters, don't mix. Since I haven't checked these
for the potential of FP's, be very cautious, especially with the @LINKED
John wrote:
The problem with body filters is the big performance hit the server
takes in high volumes setups.
Comments?
Or big filters. As an experiment I took the Imail domain blacklist
(17000 entries) and turned it into a mongo BODY CONTAINS filter file.
It worked magnificently. The flow of
16 matches
Mail list logo
