Sorry for being off topic but with all the .NET talk lately ...
It seems that Microsoft is giving away development tools, or at least
the express version. Download within the next year and use forever!
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=126606&SiteID=1
Jacques Brouwers
To Un
I am not breaking any thing by passing on what I see in black and white text
from my distributor, which has the new Imail Secure Server SKUs available
for purchase. I am going to list the MSRP, not the distributor prices. This
is for new product, not service agreements. Any one thinking about renew
Yea, but your beer is better than ours. I've had some of it.
John
-- Original Message --
From: Martin Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:38:23 +0100
>Hi John,
>
>> ex: "Don t eat green frog s" w
Hallo Darin,
> Hmmm sounds like the best path may be an external test for Declude that
> is optimized to process your phrase list more quickly than Declude can by
> itself. Still a bit of work, but as you point out it may be better than
> trying to reduce 350k phrases to regex manually.
Your'
Hmmm sounds like the best path may be an external test for Declude that
is optimized to process your phrase list more quickly than Declude can by
itself. Still a bit of work, but as you point out it may be better than
trying to reduce 350k phrases to regex manually.
At the same time, you coul
Hi John,
> ex: "Don t eat green frog s" would match those other examples because it
> views all of them as "Donteatgreenfrogs" ???
Nope, for that, normalization mus be turned on. And this is too dangerous and
generates tons of false/positives.
> One problem converting to Declude would be you w
Hallo Darin,
> Besides which, I understand frogs are a delicacy in some areas, so I don't
> think this particular rule would be very strong... and might lead to a lot
> of false positives ;^P
Your're right. In our neighbour country France, frogs are a delicacy. Ok, the
french people are also eati
Hi Darin,
> Can you consolidate these at all using regular expressions, or are they all
> distinct?
autch, this looks like really heavy work. No please...
> Maybe a lot of them are old rules that are not hitting content any more?
Yes, of course. After years maybe 10 to 20% are obsolet. But someti
I am sure it can't be this simple, but are you saying basically it is as if the
special characters are not even there?
ex: "Don t eat green frog s" would match those other examples because it views
all of them as "Donteatgreenfrogs" ???
One problem converting to Declude would be you would hav
Besides which, I understand frogs are a delicacy in some areas, so I don't
think this particular rule would be very strong... and might lead to a lot
of false positives ;^P
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Schaible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Scott Fisher"
Sent: Monday, November
Can you consolidate these at all using regular expressions, or are they all
distinct?
300k seems like a lot since Sniffer does such a good job with a little over
50k rules.
Maybe a lot of them are old rules that are not hitting content any more?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Mart
Hi,
> I'm not familiar with the Imail phrase list.
The rules are quite simple. IMail treats the characters
;:,&.%!{}|?<>[]()"_-+*\~`/=^'$@ special. Let's say the phrase "Don t eat green
frog s" would match:
"Don t eat green frog s"
"Don_t{!eat green frog< I'm not familiar with the Imail phrase
Martin,
That is correct - Imail anti-spam is very basic. You may want to
investigate the third party antispam addons like mxGuard and Declude.
Darrell
---
Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude And
Imail. IMail Queue Moni
I am currently out of the office
I will return Wednesday, November 9th, 2005
Please call the helpdesk on x4040 with any urgent issues
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ
I'm not familiar with the Imail phrase list.
But having a Declude filter with 35 records wouldn't be a good thing.
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Schaible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IMail Forum"
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum] Declude phrase form
Yes, i do ...
Am Montag, 7. November 2005 um 23:07 schrieben Sie:
> Are you talking about "phrase-list.txt" in Imail?
> John
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Schaible
> Sent: M
Interesting. I'll have to keep an eye out for these.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Schaible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darin Cox"
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Image-only Spam-Mails
Hi Darin,
This is the source:
X-UIDL: 391310558
--
Are you talking about "phrase-list.txt" in Imail?
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Schaible
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:38 PM
To: IMail Forum
Subject: [IMail Forum] Declude phrase format
Hi,
Some month ago, i asked t
Hi Darin,
This is the source:
X-UIDL: 391310558
--=_074dfa5e8a301a18a5010725144ba931
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
--=_074dfa5e8a301a18a5010725144ba931
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: in
Hi,
Some month ago, i asked the guys from declude, if the phrase filter file from
IMail can be converted to the format of declude.
As you know, IMail treats special characters a bit special.
The guy from Declude told me, that a conversion is not possible. He also told
me, that maybe a migratio
Pardon the plug here - we were inundated (sp?) with this type of email
before purchacing Invaiant's invURIBL add-on for declude. Works like a
charm.
Used the 30 day trial first to tweak settings, make sure it would do what we
were after, etc. then got the license key.
invURIBL and Sniffer are th
Yes but, most of the image-only spam we have encountered contains a
non-clickable link to the target, encoded into the image itself. As
much as I dig Declude and URIBL, they don't perform OCR(yet...).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Hi,
I learned that today, but IMail is not able to use this service. IMail does not
offer, that an service can read/parse a mail at runtime, i guess.
Am Montag, 7. November 2005 um 19:42 schrieben Sie:
> URI filtering is very effective at stopping th
URI filtering is very effective at stopping these kinds of spams (assuming
the domain is listed). SURBL/URIBL tend to grab on to these fairly quickly.
URI blacklists are designed to catch this kind of stuff since it focuses on
the spamvertised link / image.
Darrell
-
Title: Message
Agreed. Its there money. If they are so stuck on supporting a unsupported
browser then they should pay the price.
Kevin
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Darin
CoxSent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:49 AMTo:
I
Well... we have been lucky... what does the body of the email look like?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Schaible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darin Cox"
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Image-only Spam-Mails
Hi Darin,
> How about the URL of
Title: Message
Hi Kevin,
I was just kidding. While I agree with you,
and we strongly encourage Mac users to use Safari or Firefox, if a customer of a
development project decides they have to have IE for Mac support (as a
recent one did despite our arguments to switch browsers), then it's e
Hi Kevin,
You're right. I think that a big percentage of all mac users are using Safari. IE 4.5 was popular on Max OS9. I checked our webmail logs form the last 24 Month and i dind't see one user with OS9/IE only.
If IMail 2006 will support modern Mac's running on OSX with gecko based browser
Title: Message
Sure I
will get on a call with you. I let users know up front that IE for MAC is now
less that 1% of the users and supporting it on a web site just is not cost
effictive if they want it I will still do it but it just does not make any
sence. It would be like still supporting I
Hi Darin,
> How about the URL of the image? Either that or the URL that links the image
> to a website is the way most of this is caught.
Nope, no URL. Image only.
> If there's no link at all (I haven't seen any like that), then it could
Good for you ;-)
We had hunderts of it today. i attached t
Title: Message
Can I get you on a conference call with a
couple of our customers to let them know they shouldn't use or support IE for
Mac?
Seriously, though... there are a lot of IE for Mac
users out there still. We ask up front if the customer wants to support it
before starting layout
Title: Message
IE for
mac should no longer be used. Due to incompatability with newer standards, It
should be in the ball park with netscape 4.x and anyone using it will continue
to have issues which will get worse as time goes on.
Kevin
Bilbee
-Original Message-From:
[E
How about the URL of the image? Either that or the URL that links the image
to a website is the way most of this is caught.
If there's no link at all (I haven't seen any like that), then it could
still be filtered by comparing the bit signature of the image with known
spam.
Darin.
- Origin
Hi,
The problem is, that mostly no url is available. The url is written in to the
image (stupid, isn't it), meaning the recipient has to type the address. Other
mails are advertising stock recommondations, no url
This is my problem, the only chance is to hope, that an external service is
a
On Monday, November 7, 2005 at 2:25:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
> That could be. However, it has been an extremely long time since I've
> seen a Spam with an image myself.
My bad for making this statement. I didn't look hard enough. However,
upon looking at the raw source of the mess
Hmmm... haven't taken one of the grid layouts that .NET steers you towards
(you can veer away to safety without any problem) and validating it. Though
the question is not really .NET, but the layout method encouraged by .NET.
My guess is it will validate OK with the exception of a few minor issue
On Monday, November 7, 2005 at 2:12:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
> Hi,
> I'm using the build-in antispam stuff from IMail.
> Not all of this images have html tags, they are mostly inline
> images. This is one of the reasons, why it's so difficult to catch them.
That could be. Howeve
Our issues have been with IE for Mac, Safari
has been fine. IE for Mac has a number of well-known CSS bugs...perhaps
one minor reason why the product has been discontinued by MS. It has
nothing to do with PC vs. Mac... or "non-compliant code".
Darin.
- Original Message -
From:
Does phrase filter scan attachments?
What does phrase filter consider terminators? Space, comma, period and?
I'm sure that this has been considered.
adamc
S.J.Stanaitis wrote:
Realize that to the server an email which to us has only an image, is
still just text. Perhaps a filter can be writ
Hi,
I'm using the build-in antispam stuff from IMail.
Not all of this images have html tags, they are mostly inline images. This is
one of the reasons, why it's so difficult to catch them.
Do you know, if can use surbl.org like the other antispam services in IMail?
I think, this services is a
Realize that to the server an email which to us has only an image, is
still just text. Perhaps a filter can be written which tags or removes
emails which have nothing outside of a pair of <>? Just an idea.
copacs wrote:
FROM SHORE IT'S EASY TO DIRECT THE CAPTAIN (Free translation from a
Dutc
On Monday, November 7, 2005 at 12:50:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
> Hi,
> How do you deal with spam mails containing a image only? Those mails are
> really hard to capture.
Most all of those have a link the image is tied to. I would imagine if
you are using Declude and have SpamAssas
Hi,
> FROM SHORE IT'S EASY TO DIRECT THE CAPTAIN (Free translation from a Dutch
> proverb).
Häää?
> I think that the spam checker developer must build an option to address mail
> with only an image, so without any text, to be recognized as spam.
This is might be very dangerous. Sometimes i rece
Kenneth,
| I think that the spam checker developer must build an option to address
| mail
| with only an image, so without any text, to be recognized as spam.
[--jimm replies]
Unfortunately, much of the "image-only" spam that I have encountered does
not meet that criterion. Very often I encoun
FROM SHORE IT'S EASY TO DIRECT THE CAPTAIN (Free translation from a Dutch
proverb).
I think that the spam checker developer must build an option to address mail
with only an image, so without any text, to be recognized as spam.
Kenneth
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Schaible" <[
Hi,
How do you deal with spam mails containing a image only? Those mails are really
hard to capture.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Merlin Consulting
Martin Schaible
Bahnhofstrasse 27
CH-8702 Zollikon
Phone: +41 44 391 30 00
Fax: +41 44 391 32
One word. Ignorant.
Kevin Bilbee
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Barnes
> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:52 PM
> To: IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com
> Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IMail 2006 WebMail w/o Mac
>
>
> While I am
Same as any other language, (PBP, PERL, JSP, ASP, ...). The HTML put out to
the browser is totally dependant on how the programmer wrote the underlying
code ans has nothing to do with it being written in dot net.
Tha said .net code can be written with a text editor or with an RDE, (Rapid
Developme
48 matches
Mail list logo
