One thing that we noticed a few hours ago was a new image spam that
has quite a bit of bandwidth behind it and all new zombies - perhaps
that's a piece of it.
_M
On Friday, May 19, 2006, 3:30:33 PM, Rick wrote:
RB> Same here
RB> Rick
RB> -Original Message-
RB> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R
> ...a lot of circumstantial evidence that Declude was written in
> Visual Basic...
Er, what evidence was that?
Declude.exe was *not* written in VB, as a quick Dependency Walker
check would tell you. It's clearly always been a Win32 C/C++ app.
As far as the CRLF issue goes, it'
> Sandy's ldap2aliases can be used for this, but IMO, it isn't
> something that I would use for multiple different Exchange servers
> as the configuration can be a bit much. For one or two Exchange
> servers it would definitely be practicable.
Yes, exchange2aliases (ldap2aliases is
> FYI, restarting ORF doesn't affect MS SMTP as far as I can tell, and
> as long as you configure MS SMTP to accept all E-mail, all that a
> restart of ORF will do is cause a moment of un-validated E-mail
> which should get deleted by Declude as spam if it came from a
> dictionary a
06 12:41 PM
> To: Rick Baranowski
> Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam
>
> One thing that we noticed a few hours ago was a new image spam that
> has quite a bit of bandwidth behind it and all new zombies - perhaps
> that's a piece of it.
>
> _M
>
> On Friday, May 19,
HBOX (Toll Free)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Sanford Whiteman
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:57 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox
> Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam
>
> > ...a lot of ci
> Do not know why they would want to rewrite the message. They should add a
> test name for the condition and say it failed the test.
I believe it fails a Declude Virus Vulnerability test.
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall find!"
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailin
John,
> > Do not know why they would want to rewrite the message.
> They should add a
> > test name for the condition and say it failed the test.
>
> I believe it fails a Declude Virus Vulnerability test.
What test is that and in what version? That wouldn't be 4.x would it?
Although, that woul
Spam has significantly increased in the past 7 days due to new bot
nets (from old friends) and a number of new tactics for generating pdf
and related spam and their mutations.
I've attached a new-spam/leakage analysis from our primary spamtraps-
you can see that new traffic quite literally more th
> Gotta agree. The rblpolicyd functionality is rare at the
> free/low-cost price point, and new and untested even on
> *nix (though sa-exim has been able to do the same for
> Exim for a couple of years, a kind of weird latency if you ask me).
Sandy, I'll hazard a guess that this module
ete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John T (lists)"
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Increase?
Spam has significantly increased in the past 7 days due to new bot
nets (from old friends) and a number of new tactics for generating
On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 1:29:55 PM, Sheldon wrote:
>>
SK> We have been experiencing the same thing. The spammers seem to be getting
SK> better at passing filters and probably changing IPs and domains as fast as
SK> they can be listed in the spam databases. We have some really hard core
SK>
On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 1:49:25 PM, Andrew wrote:
CA> No, I haven't seen this.
CA> But I have meant to ask if others on the list are seeing that their spam
CA> volumes are up in the last week. I have, by a 10% increase. What I'm
CA> seeing is not more spam getting to mailboxes, just more
Reply to: Tom Schwarz
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Software on Saturday 1:28:47 PM
Thanks, Tom. It is working nicely here. It is much faster
as once you delete and confirm the focus is on the appropriate
button, so once it starts you can just keep hitting Enter
until you get to someth
Reply to: Tom Schwarz
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program on Saturday 6:43:32 PM
We have never seen the default message when a weight of 10
occurs. We have seen it when greater than 20 occurs. I thought
perhaps you are using a specific format with perhaps a undocumented
variable like
Reply to: Tom Schwarz
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program on Sunday 4:00:21 PM
This is super Tom. You are really saving me one heck
of a lot of time. It looks nicer all the time. I like
the switch from text to html display. Since you are
adding features, figured I'd list a few:
Keyb
Reply to: Bennie
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Question on Wednesday 10:03:36 AM
Global.Cfg
I add:
XINHEADER X-Note: RDNS Real-Origin: %REVDNS% [%REMOTEIP%]
XINHEADER X-Note: SMTP Real-From: %MAILFROM%
XINHEADER X-Note: SMTP Real-To: (%NRECIPS%) %ALLRECIPS%
--
Rog
I'm using 5.5 too and after a short delay I se one line down near
the bottom of the table and a couple of timeout rows at the very
bottom.
I also get a JavaScript error on the front page:
Line 6
Error: 'document.fm.domain' is null or not an object
I've used this before and don't remember t
This is a good argument for the delayed-scan-and-deliver feature I
suggested previously. The porn guys you are probably talking about we
call the "mad-lib pornsters". Every day or so they will come out with
a brand new set of domains delivering a wide array of porn traffic.
Actually, our robots usu
McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sheldon Koehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam getting through
On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 1:29:55 PM, Sheldon wrote:
>>
SK> We have been experiencing th
> This is a good argument for the delayed-scan-and-deliver
> feature I suggested previously. The porn guys you are
> probably talking about we call the "mad-lib pornsters". Every
> day or so they will come out with a brand new set of domains
> delivering a wide array of porn traffic.
> Actually, ou
Check my logic on this...
For the first rule we would run the external filter DELAYSCANANDDELIVER.
The external .exe checks the sender IP against the database and either
issues exit code 0 (process) 1 (STOPALLTESTS)
If the external .exe doesn't find an IP w/ proper timeset offset in the
database t
On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, 5:55:48 AM, Markus wrote:
MG> Hi Scott,
MG>
MG> great stat's !
MG>
MG> A question about SNIFFER
MG> It seems you have a much longer list of different SNIFFER return codes
then I
MG> Is there somewhere a complete list?
MG>
MG> Markus
Is this what you are loo
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Heath
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:24 PM
To: Tom Schwarz
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program
Reply to: Tom Schwarz
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program on Sunday 4:00:21 PM
This is super Tom. You are really saving me one
ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program
> Delete, Insert, and Refresh keys will add to the program. I will add them
> soon.
>
> I am going to change the rules on picking up weight. I w
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Program
Importance: Low
I was setting up a networkpath path eg. \\123.123.123.123\imail for the log
files. But There was a type-o so I got a runtime error.
Now when I start the program the
Thanks Roger...
Bennie
- Original Message -
From: "Roger Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bennie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review Question
> Reply to: Bennie
>
-- Original Message --
From: "Sheldon Koehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:12:11 -0700
It is obvious they are using "disposable" domain names. They come in flavors like
gbzqrx.info and so on.
$400 pure profit from the
deal. So a few $10 domain names don't put much of a dent in their profits.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Premuda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Declude JunkMail Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 20
Reply to: Chuck Schick
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review and Kill File on Wednesday 6:30:12 PM
Suppose you could have a setting that would allow you
to use a Declude blacklist rather than the kill.lst, seeing
how this might be more effective and this is dynamic, not
requiring a SMTP servic
I don't find in the IMail documentation that you have to recycle the SMTP
service. Can you confirm this please?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Heath
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:42 PM
To: Chuck Schick
Subject:
PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Heath
>Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:42 PM
>To: Chuck Schick
>Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review and Kill File
>
>
>Reply to: Chuck Schick
> Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Spam Review and Kill File on We
32 matches
Mail list logo
