RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

You can follow the link in the text that the SpamCop RBL returns, and then follow a link there for further information: http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=blcheck&ip=216.9.248.51 Which shows that this Blackberry server is listed again and will be for the next 16 hours. It also shows the recent hi

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

coles, 20 de Septiembre de 2006 07:45 a.m. > To: declude.junkmail@declude.com > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but > not blocked > > Yes, servers can be removed from Spamcop pretty quick > depending on various factors. FWIW IMO Spamcop tends to list &g

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

Yes, servers can be removed from Spamcop pretty quick depending on various factors. FWIW IMO Spamcop tends to list known legit mailservers fairly often (gmail, aol, earthlink, etc). I use it, but I also counter weight revdns for some of those big providers mailservers to counter spamcop hits.

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop blocked message but not blocked

Yes, an IP could be delisted within a few hours. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Panda > Consulting S.A. Luis Alberto Arango > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:20 PM > To: declude

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

il is held. Removing spamcop from your testing would be a mistake IMHO. Travis - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop Richard, Last I checked, SpamCop was tagging a

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

nyway... Richard Farris Ethixs Online 1.270.247. Office 1.800.548.3877 Tech Support "Crossroads to a Cleaner Internet" - Original Message - From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Decl

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

For me this month spamcop has been correct 99.3% of the time. It has detected about 45% of all spams. - Original Message - From: "Richard Farris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop I have alr

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

Monday, November 21, 2005 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via a server listed in spamcop. Spamcop these days has been proving to be less and less reliable - I can't tell you how often AOL, Earthlink, Gmail

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

ernet" - Original Message - From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via a server listed in spamcop. S

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

gmail has many outbound servers - chances are one of the messages went via a server listed in spamcop. Spamcop these days has been proving to be less and less reliable - I can't tell you how often AOL, Earthlink, Gmail, Attbi, and other big ISP's get listed... Darrell -

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching Gmail

I noticed that Spamcop is catching email from GMAIL.COM Is there another real-time black list to use that is as good Spamcop was. Gmail is slow on their TOS reports. I have sent in 30 so far and it normally takes 5 working days for them to kill the account and reply. However, I have spamcop

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

ernet" - Original Message - From: "Colbeck, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail Do you have an example, Richard? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

Also, all of a sudden I am catching a lot of seemingly lagitimate mail from yahoo with .. Subject To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; Headers Received: from spamwall.apid.com [63.238.52.89] by ethixs.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.11) id A86D12EA0280; Fri, 08 Jul 200

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

Do you have an example, Richard? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Farris Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:48 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail I am finding several legitimate email

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop catching gmail

Richard, This is a common complaint of a lot of people about Spamcop including myself. They have no issues listing AOL, Hotmail, etc. It's just the way their system works. It takes in really no consideration that yes they may leak some spam - but all in all they are legit servers. Darrel

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"

 Skywaves, Inc.       - Original Message - From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:58 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces" Let me guess, you are using

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"

on 4/12/05 2:33 PM, Technical Support wrote: > Has anyone else had this issue before, > and if so, what can be done to fix it? Yes, one of my servers is listed somewhere (sorbs I think). Setup an outbound rule in IMail, any message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "undeliverable mail" ge

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop blacklist "Misdirected bounces"

Let me guess, you are using the evil BOUNCEIFYOUMUST action in Declude JM?   John T eServices For You   -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Technical Support Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:34 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declud

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

I do the same. -d - Original Message - From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:37 AM > To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers > > Well, John. I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, but I'm feeling a > little chatty whil

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:02 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers > SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make no > allowance for how much g

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make no allowance for how much good mail is coming from an IP address. They only do blacklisting. I am not sure how many people actually do this, but I give a small weight back to the message if it was truely sent from an AOL MX. This help

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing AOL webmail servers

Well, John. I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, but I'm feeling a little chatty while I listen to hold music. SpamCop and pretty well every other blacklisting service make no allowance for how much good mail is coming from an IP address. They only do blacklisting. The funny thing is that sin

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing? > Ernesto, > > I am not sure if anyone else has covered this or even if this is applicable, > but some ISP's like AT&T will deny DNS queries for known spam lists like > SPAMCOP while a

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

rom: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing? >Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something? >I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed, >yet,

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Do you have do you have any further information about this statement - what type of errors, etc. "It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed)." The issue I am aware of

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Scott: Do you have do you have any further information about this statement - what type of errors, etc. "It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed)." We have used

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

That did it! I completely forgot to look in the SMTP dns settings. Once I changed that, bang...lot's o' Spam being caught. Thanks! - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [Dec

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

> It is important to note that you should only have one DNS > server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known > sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). Really? I've listed 3 DNS for over 4 years now without any problem. Is there any KB article? I'm not sure if they ha

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Thanks for the reply. I have checked my DNS settings, but everything is fine. It is important to note that you should only have one DNS server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). I've checked again, and nothing is be

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

> It is important to note that you should only have one DNS > server listed in the IMail SMTP settings (IMail has a known > sporadic issue if there are multiple DNS servers listed). Really? I've listed 3 DNS for over 4 years now without any problem. Is there any KB article? Markus --- [This

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

y DNS settings, how can I check to make sure that I do have it correct. thanks - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing? > > >Has there been a

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop not testing?

Has there been a change in the cfg files lately, or something? I've seen a few domains/IPs that Spamcop does have listed, yet, they don't appear to have failed the spamcop test. This is the line I have in my cfg file: SPAMCOP ip4r bl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 5 0 Is there something I should notice so

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop Listed

Serge, If you want to use the list manually, or from custom software, you should instruct your system to do a dns query for the information. For example, if you want to check if 1.2.3.4 is on the blacklist, you might type this at the command-line: nslookup 4.3.2

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

ril 01, 2004 8:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP > > > Scott, > > It's AT&T's DNS servers. I wonder if they are doing something to block > those kinds of lookup's. > > Darrell > > -Original Message-

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

I noticed this about a year ago on some of the other DNSBL's; they are trying to reduce DNS load by making these types of queries fail. > Scott, > > It's AT&T's DNS servers. I wonder if they are doing something to block > those kinds of lookup's. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Dec

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

TECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP >I noticed that several RBL's have not been triggered off one of our backup >mail servers over the last 24 hours. For example SPAMCOP hasn't. I turned >on "DEBUG" mode and noticed that it was reporting this > >04/01/

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP

I noticed that several RBL's have not been triggered off one of our backup mail servers over the last 24 hours. For example SPAMCOP hasn't. I turned on "DEBUG" mode and noticed that it was reporting this 04/01/2004 10:56:53.296 Q3bbb215802381bda Test #18 [ORDB] is same as Test #18 [ORDB=*]. Answ

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

Sounds like something that would be easy for them to improve. I hope that you've given them the recommendation of exposing the data in TXT records. I just started building some spamtraps myself, and before I can make use of them, I'm going to have to weed out at least the large ISP and broadb

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

SpamCop is a very important test, and I would imagine that with a week's work, they could correct all issues with tagging mail servers that handle over 50% of legitimate E-mail traffic in the US. For years, I have thought that they should return the spam/total ratio for mailservers (which they

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

I'm quite sure that they were relaying spam from zombies, however, you shouldn't be listing the world's largest ISP's mail servers in the same group as direct sources of spam.  When they list AOL's mail servers, they wind up tagging probably 99.9% or more of the E-mail coming from those servers

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

Matt, Did you ever consider that they tagged 2 different AOL mail servers because they were sending spam? Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:03 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCo

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop acting up

Well I'm getting spam from aol too.. And we are a small small (62 ip's).. So shut them off.. Easy concept since they are the ones that force the rest of us email admins to mush have a rDNS in order for them to accept our legit mail.. ~Rick > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop listing Webtv.net IP

SpamCop and MailPolice both got demoted on my system by a point today, and I hope to bring them down another point soon (after measuring the effect on my system). When I see ISP mail servers listed, it is generally due to one of two things...they either have no controls on someone doing a bulk

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Question

Doug, I don't think anything is wrong. SpamC. is returning a TXT record with that information. The link says that's experimental. Burzin At 12:22 PM 12/19/2003, you wrote: I was looking at the headers and saw SPAMCOP : Blocked Is that how it should be - what it's returning? If not, ideas on w

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Question

I was looking at the headers and saw SPAMCOP : Blocked Is that how it should be - what it's returning? If not, ideas on what could be wrong? That is what it is returning: X-RBL-Warning: SPAMCOP: Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?66.111

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses Kami, What is the name of the filter file that you have entries of those type in? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, D

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Do you have plans to offer offloading for WHITELIST HELO and WHITELIST REVDNS? Not at this time, simply because we can't envision there being a need for 200 such entries. :) However, the WHITELIST limit is something that comes up frequently, so it is quite possible that more changes will be ma

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

I'm not sure if everyone has heard, but IronPort bought SpamCop. It's likely that they're fiddling with it. There's an article on Slashdot from Wednesday about it. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/03/2016218&mode=thread&tid=111&tid=126&tid=137&tid=187 Personally, After seeing so man

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Scott, Do you have plans to offer offloading for WHITELIST HELO and WHITELIST REVDNS? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] S

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Kami, What is the name of the filter file that you have entries of those type in? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Hav

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

> Yes... > > Like a filter file: > > REVDNS -20 ENDSWITH .amazon.com > > I put the period before Amazon to just make sure no funky > domain like .spamamazon.com can get through. Hmmpfff I hoped already that that could be a reason for unlimited IPBYPASS entries... ;-) Marku

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Or does it just apply to WHITELIST FROM entries contained in GLOBAL.CFG? Only the WHITELIST FROM lines can be moved out of the global.cfg file. -Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers. Declude Virus: Cat

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

uot;R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses > > >Am I correct that you can only add 100 WHITELIST entries to the GLOBAL.CFG > >file? Is tha

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Hi Dan, I've only seen one FP from SpamCop in the last week. I routinely see email sent by legitimate firms get tagged as spam, but usually these firms are using third party mailers to send information. Burzin At 09:10 AM 12/5/2003, you wrote: Hello, All, Has anyone noticed in the last few day

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses Kami: I've been taking a look at your configuration files every few weeks and based on what I saw there a couple of months ago, I also started WHITELISTing based on Re

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Am I correct that you can only add 100 WHITELIST entries to the GLOBAL.CFG file? Is that 100 each for REVDNS and HELO or 100 total? Is there anyway to go past that limit and/or else offload those into a separate file? Actually, it's a limit of 200. The WHITELIST FROM entries can be offloaded to

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:24 AM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses > Dan: > > We made a decision a long time ago to whitelist REVDNS of all the folks you > had listed. > > We now have two REVDNS negat

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

Dan: We made a decision a long time ago to whitelist REVDNS of all the folks you had listed. We now have two REVDNS negative files. 1: Whitelist as entered in the Global.cfg (I only hope one day Scott moves these entries to their own files). 2: Negative reverseDNS files that adds negative wei

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Having Legit IP Addresses

I have noticed this as well, and it is causing me a never-ending stream of headaches. Jim O'Keefe Technical Support @YourNET Connection, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Dan Geiser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 9

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

lack of personal involvement in the validation and verification process, and like Mark said, "an inaccurate system is worse than no system." Bill - Original Message - From: "Andy Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

May be a commercial enterprise will be more open to adding a "hands-off" reporting system. Manually confirming every spam that I already determined as spam makes the system not practical. What they need is a commercial (for fee) account which includes the (revocable) right to submit directly int

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

Sure... if all they do is provide cash such that the spamcop services provides don't go down due to lack of funding, that will be a good thing. If they also take over some of the operations, then Matt would get his wish and they could afford to put in place some filters to make their service less

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

IronPort owns the bondedsender.com whitelist service, as well, and I have had good results using their ip4r service. So this sounds like it could be a good combination of services. Bill - Original Message - From: "Colbeck, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesd

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop news

Even though they say that it will remain free, it seems like good business sense for them. The value of SpamCop, imperfect as it is, still is immense and only MailPolice would seem to be able to carry on that torch. Hopefully with just a little more effort, they can clean up some of their iss

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop

Terry, Remember the notices you get from your registrar telling you that they need you to verify your information for ICANN ? http://www.julianhaight.com/jokerstupidity.shtml Fritz Frederick P. Squib, Jr. Network Operations/Mail Administrator Citizens Telephone Company of Kecksburg http://www.w

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

>> I don't see the reasoning behind sending SPAMCOP thousands of e-mails per day that are already stopped by your system. << Presence in SPAMCOP is temporary. To REMAIN listed, you need to keep submitting SPAM so that the senders keep getting listed. Best Regards Andy Schmidt H&M Systems Softwa

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account > > >I understand what you are saying here. If there's any chance whatsoever > >that I would send

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account > > >I understand what you are saying here. If there's any chance whatsoever > >that I would send a legit e-mail t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

eedback on my other 2 questions? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Jason Newland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account > Typically I only send SPAMCOP e-mails t

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

I understand what you are saying here. If there's any chance whatsoever that I would send a legit e-mail to Spamcop as spam then I won't set it up. I think the real problem is that the idea behind Spamcop is people reporting unsolicted E-mail. The failure of enough Declude tests *should* indic

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

on the content of messages. Do you have any feedback re: my other 2 questions? Thanks, Dan - Original Message - From: "Kami Razvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:00 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

t spam is click on the SpamSource button, and it submits to SPAMCOP. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kami Razvan Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP Account

Dan.. BE VERY CAREFUL IF YOU DO THIS... We were doing this and once someone from the list sent me an email with bunch of keywords in it.. The system automatically forwarded it to the SPAMCop account. If you do this make sure you review every spam that goes into your account and approve them know

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop as reliable source?

Lately a reputable Listserv I belong to has begun failing the Spamcop test. I've whitelisted the domain, but it's got me wondering...is Spamcop a reliable source of spam, or would I do better by downgrading their weight. Currently I have Spamcop fails set to label subject as Spam regardless of

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop as reliable source?

DM> Any (subjective ) suggestions? I've seen spamcop get way to aggressive over the past 6 months. They used to be pretty accurate. We were listed for a while because our domain name was in an MX record (for backup store and forward) for a client ISP who had 1 user get reported to spamcop. We

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

We're using our internet provider's DNS server. It seems to work, but I don't know how to test it for the types of queries declude uses. nslookup works fine. Does nslookup work fine using the DNS servers listed in the OS, or are you using "set server=192.0.2.53" (entering the IP of the first D

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian. -Original Message- From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop? >Debug gives me these lines

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

Debug gives me these lines: 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 1-SPAMCOP didn't get a response. 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 2-JAPAN didn't get a response. 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 3-MONKEYFORMMAIL didn't get a response. 07/07/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e73

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

Good call, Scott. I don't think any of these tests are showing up right now. I'm going to bump up the logging and take a better look. If none of them are showing up, did you make any major changes recently (such as adding a gateway in front of your IMail server)? I'm guessing that Declude isn'

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

7/2003 13:10:54 Qa9930eca013e736e Test 4-MONKEYPROXIES didn't get a response. -Original Message- From: R. Scott Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop? >Has spamcop stopped working? I'm

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

y, July 07, 2003 12:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop? >Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference to it in my >logs now (set to mid) or headers. It still seems to be working fine from here (see http://www.declude.com/spamtrap.htm )

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] spamcop?

Has spamcop stopped working? I'm not seeing any reference to it in my logs now (set to mid) or headers. It still seems to be working fine from here (see http://www.declude.com/spamtrap.htm ). Could you post the longer line that begins with "SPAMCOP" from your \IMail\Declude\global.cfg file? A

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop?

I can get there now with my reporting code. Hirthe, Alexander wrote: Hello, what happened to Spamcop.net? I cannot http them? Alex --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscrib

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP weight

I have adjusted the spamcop weight from 7 to 10 in the global.cfg file but messages are still coming thru that have spamcop marked as 7. Any ideas? Example: X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMCOP [7] Were they coming through as "X-Spam-Tests-Failed: SPAMCOP [7]" before? I'm guessing they were coming th

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop, OSSRC, and OSSOFT Tests

: Ron Harris Subject:Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop, OSSRC, and OSSOFT Tests Ron, Tuesday, November 12, 2002 you wrote: RH> I currently Hold a lot of e-mail failing a lot of the open relay tests. The only two tests I hold directly are ORDB and SNIFFER. ORDB is about 99% for

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop, OSSRC, and OSSOFT Tests

>I have given this test a weight of 2. My thinking is that although they are known to produce SPAM, they have not been shown very in-effective in Scott's monthly log. Darn keyboard virus. Let me try that again. ...they have not been shown to be very effective in... John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA IT

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop, OSSRC, and OSSOFT Tests

Ron, Tuesday, November 12, 2002 you wrote: RH> I currently Hold a lot of e-mail failing a lot of the open relay tests. The only two tests I hold directly are ORDB and SNIFFER. ORDB is about 99% for me and SNIFFER is less but still very high. Mainly SNIFFER fails on lists and persona

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop, OSSRC, and OSSOFT Tests

I currently give a weight of 16 to SpamCop, forcing the message to either fail 2 minor tests or one other major test. (Subject modification 15-19, hold at 20.) Here is what Declude has to say about OSSRC: Osirusoft's Confirmed Spam Source list. These are sites that continually spam and have been

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP:[SNIFFER Sniffer test failed]Declude.JunkMail and Message Sniffer

> Next month we plan to release a version that includes compound heuristics. > At that time we will begin adding white-rule to the database to match "well > known" legitimate lists. We expect this will reduce the problem. Yippee!!! Sheldon Sheldon Koehler, Owner/Partnerhttp://www.tenfo

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP:[SNIFFER Sniffer test failed]Declude.JunkMail and Message Sniffer

For now, you will want to whitelist these. The trouble is that many lists append advertising content to their messages. Sniffer tends to get triggered by the advertising content. Next month we plan to release a version that includes compound heuristics. At that time we will begin adding white-rul

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP:[SNIFFER Sniffer test failed]Declude.JunkMail and Message Sniffer

I didn't like the way I worded my reply... Say you were going to use in your myfilter.txt: MAILFROM -10 @columbiahouse.com Then you also use: SUBJECTCONTAINS 10 "free records" BODYCONTAINS 10 "buy one get one free" Then you have a WEIGHT15 DELETE Now the email is: Received from: bob@colu

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPAMCOP:[SNIFFER Sniffer test failed]Declude.JunkMail and Message Sniffer

Instead of whitelisting, try giving those names a negative value. That way if you do get some real spam from that domain, you will still have other values or weights to use to catch it. If you whitelist, nothing is even checked and it goes through regardless. Jim Rooth Klotron, Inc. -Orig

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop - SPAM

Some one else may have a better idea, but that may not be from SpamCop. There was a discussion yesterday on the Imail forum about some one sending out fake notices pretending to be from SpamCop. http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/msg57757.htm l Notice this in the header

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop

Just thought some of you may be interested in this write-up from the langa list http://www.langa.com === Reader Joan Korenman wrote to tell me that SpamCop has me on a list of known spammers. That's happened in the past, and I'

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SpamCop Dead.

PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop Dead. No specific idea, but I did just watch a HUGE network instability pass through the UUNet network... Took the last half hour or so to stabilize (knock wood). Maybe that's part of it. _M | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROT

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop Dead.

No specific idea, but I did just watch a HUGE network instability pass through the UUNet network... Took the last half hour or so to stabilize (knock wood). Maybe that's part of it. _M | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chuck Schick |

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop issue

> EG> My only concern is that after doing some checking myself with just > EG> warn on weight10 is that someone that fail revdns and badheaders will > EG> have a weight of 13 and thusely get held/deleted. I've been using the weight10 and it's been working fine for me. Here is an example of my

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop issue

Eje, Monday, March 4, 2002 you wrote: EG> How do you generate those reports ? Perl. EG> Interested in sharing if it's a program or script ? That's a big step. I don't have the time to do that right now. Terry Fritts --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http:/

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spamcop issue

Eje, Monday, March 4, 2002 you wrote: EG> My only concern is that after doing some checking myself with just EG> warn on weight10 is that someone that fail revdns and badheaders will EG> have a weight of 13 and thusely get held/deleted. I don't know if this helps you or not but we use a similar

  1   2   >