> Scott already indicated that he planed on having a system where the
> GUI was just simply an overlay to the config files and not
> necessarily required...
I agree that there's nothing wrong with a configuration GUI.
There is, however, something VERY wrong with a non-worki
Ok, couldn't resist my $.02
M> sense, but I think they are putting the cart before the horse. Wouldn't
M> it be much better to work on creating a new format for the config files
Like an XML based config file that incorporated Junkmail, Virus and
Hijack configurations as well as per user control
: RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail]
Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup Database test for Declude JunkMail
Declude is not a simple thing to implement and configure.
Those of us running it are more than capable of adding a line to our config
files and deciding how to weight it/configure it
Title: Message
Declude is not a simple thing to implement and configure.
Those of us running it are more than capable of adding a line to our config
files and deciding how to weight it/configure it/otherwise implement it. We
don't NEED a "click OK to install" GUI that does something to our co
Maybe, since this was such a different item than what we are used to, a
small group of invited beta tests would have been prudent.
There was a beta test -- just not quite as thorough as it might have been.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced
4349
www.xidix.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 4:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat
Lookup
Database test for Declude JunkMail
>We kn
Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup
Database test for Declude JunkMail
>
> >We know the Computer Horizons was sold, how much control do you have over
>
> >Well, I think this new "test" is maybe testing the waters, as so far,
even
> >though I like the idea, I do not like the implementation of this test,
and
> >have not yet done it on my server, nor on the other Imail/Declude servers
I
> >consult/maintain on. The reports so far from those that have
04 4:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup
Database test for Declude JunkMail
>We know the Computer Horizons was sold, how much control do you have
over
>Declude these days?
That depends on how you define "control" (no, I&#
Well, I think this new "test" is maybe testing the waters, as so far, even
though I like the idea, I do not like the implementation of this test, and
have not yet done it on my server, nor on the other Imail/Declude servers I
consult/maintain on. The reports so far from those that have implemented
> Put another way, while the new owners do some things differently than I
> would have (as is always the case with a transition in management), I
> haven't seen them do anything that I would really disapprove of. If I
did,
> though, I am sure that they would listen to me and give serious thought t
We know the Computer Horizons was sold, how much control do you have over
Declude these days?
That depends on how you define "control" (no, I'm not a politician!).
In this case, the level of control isn't clearly defined. The transition
of management can be tricky, and needs to be handled carefu
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Bilbee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup
Database test for Declude JunkMail
> Nope it is just a line in the c
PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Landry
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 4:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup
> Database test for Declude JunkMail
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Tolmachoff (Lists)
- Original Message -
From: "John Tolmachoff (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It appears from posts over others there are some dlls involved.
Ah, okay, I will download then. Thanks!
Bill
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail c
3:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup
Database
> test for Declude JunkMail
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > >I recommend in the future t
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >I recommend in the future to just tell us what line to add.
>
> So do I. :) But management won this one.
>
> >A 5mb download seems overkill for this.
>
> Agreed. I didn't even know until today that the install program w
going to happen in the future or does the
management just taking suggestions?
Jay
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threa
I recommend in the future to just tell us what line to add.
So do I. :) But management won this one.
A 5mb download seems overkill for this.
Agreed. I didn't even know until today that the install program was going
to be more than 10 times the size of the Declude.exe file. But people that
li
[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup
Database test for Declude JunkMail
>M> Why a 5 MB download for an IP4R test?
>
>Yea, I don't get this. Does this harvest virus IPs from our system and
>report them back to Declude?
No.
A beta version of Declude Virus rel
M> Why a 5 MB download for an IP4R test?
Yea, I don't get this. Does this harvest virus IPs from our system and
report them back to Declude?
No.
A beta version of Declude Virus released about 6 months ago added a new
feature to automatically detect forging viruses. It does this by sending a
DNS
M> Why a 5 MB download for an IP4R test?
Yea, I don't get this. Does this harvest virus IPs from our system and
report them back to Declude?
--
Best regards,
Davidmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declu
Hi Scott:
Considering that most administrators will block ANY TCP/IP traffic from/to a
server and only open exactly those 2 or 3 ports that are needed for its
primary function, you can assume that trying to "ping" will not be permitted
- thus preventing install.
Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to
ent: Friday, July 09, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: New Multiple Threat Lookup Database
test for Declude JunkMail
> > Allow ICMP packets fixed this for me.
>
> That's a pretty big issue, IMO. Lots of SOHO routers don't allow you
> to pick-and-c
Let me clarify to fix the 3592 during install, I had to stop blocking the ICMP
protocol on my router.
After the install, I was able to resume blocking the ICMP protocol.
It looks like the install program attempts to ping home to see if the admin server is
available.
Not as ideal as I would like
Why does this thing need ICMP? I don't know of other "LiveReg"-type
stuff requiring access on a port other than the port on which the
registration server _actually_ runs on.
Apparently, it pings the server to make sure that it is reachable, and if
the ping doesn't come back, it is assumed
> Allow ICMP packets fixed this for me.
That's a pretty big issue, IMO. Lots of SOHO routers don't allow you
to pick-and-choose different ICMP traffic types, so if you're blocking
any, you end up blocking all.
Why does this thing need ICMP? I don't know of other "LiveReg"-type
stuff requiri
27 matches
Mail list logo
