Ditto. We'd love to be able to do this.
In the interim, we've actually had success getting on Yahoo's good side by
contacting them.
We used the address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to get the process
started.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc
Title: Logged spam getting to mailbox
Current version does not fix this "folding" problem.
Declude is testing a newer version that may fix the problem, but no joy
yet.
Matt wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
MattSent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:34 PM
Title: Message
Would you be so kind as to post this
filter?
Thanks ahead of time
Rob
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goran
JovanovicSent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:33 AMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Combo
Filter
FYI
Title: Message
You the Man!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goran
JovanovicSent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:39 AMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Combo
Filter
Here you
go
TESTSFAILED END
CONTAINS BYPASS
# Did it Fail
I haven't received notification of 3.06. Did others receive a notice that
it was available?
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe
This is not new. Declude has been handling certain
headers poorly for three or four months now. It is not isolated to Version
4 (we're on 3).
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Agid,
CorbySent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:11 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comS
This has been a problem with Declude for a while now, and so far, their
attempts to fix have not borne any fruit. They are painfully aware.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Olden
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:54 AM
To: Declude.JunkM
Another option to consider ... www.ultradns.com has a service that does
this. I've never priced it, so it may be pricey.
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTE
Folks -
Once in awhile, we (really,me) get e-mails from folks using Blackberrys.
The body is blank. I'm trying to track down the cause.
We're using Imail 8.22 all patches applied. Latest version of Declude.
The same e-mail, going through a different e-mail server (not Imail /
Declude) goes t
1) Commtouch offering - I got to My Account, and I don't see anything to
give me a hint on pricing. Pointer requested!
2) Is this service competitive or complementary to Message Sniffer?
Thanks,
Rob
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-m
ation, and Log Parsers.
Robert Grosshandler writes:
> 1) Commtouch offering - I got to My Account, and I don't see anything
> to give me a hint on pricing. Pointer requested!
> 2) Is this service competitive or complementary to Message Sniffer?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ro
Hi
We're not a service provider (but I love and value the fact that all of you
are!)
Rob
>
>What I find particularly amusing is the line "Restrictions apply to service
providers." If there is anyone >subscribed to this mailing list who is not
a service provider, please raise your hand.
---
Hi All -
We've been very happy users of Sniffer for several years,
but now that Declude is including the Commtouch solution, we need to consider
it.
Any thoughts, comparisons, suggestions?
We're a very small shop, if that matters. We're not
an ISP, so the licensing weirdness doesn't
Test
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Test, please ignore.
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Sorry for the multiple tests, please ignore.
Rob
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
test - ignore
---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. Tounsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], andtype "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be foundat http://www.mail-archive.com.
Hi all --
What is the current best practice for handling backup MXs? It appears to
have gotten harder since the bots seem to target the lower priority MXs.
It seems that the lower priority MX accepts the mail, and then passes it
along to us, but since there isn't the same filtering going on on
David --
The problem exists in Interceptor, as well, so a fix from Ipswitch or
Smartermail isn't going to solve all of the problems, unfortunately.
If it helps at all, every message that is malformed this way is "bad", spam
scores off the charts.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PR
y migrated from whatever the CA db mirroring
application is.
Hope that helps.
Rob
========
Robert Grosshandler
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.
Hi
Declude is working wonderfully, too wonderfully. It is scanning e-mail
we're sending out from our server, and we don't want it to do that, since it
adds headers and "stuff" that have no purpose, and might actually cause
filter issues on the receiving end. We don't need it to do outbound viru
- Original Message -
From: Robert Grosshandler <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:55 AM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Turning outbound scanning off
Hi
Declude is working wonderfully, too wonderfully. It is scanning e-mail
we&#x
: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Turning outbound scanning off
That would turn off virus scanning, but not junkmail scanning.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Robert Grosshandler <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sent: Th
Congrats to all. Finally.
Rob
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Hi all --
Recently, there was discussion of an issue with AVG.
Is that addressed in today's release?
Thanks,
Rob
=
Robert Grosshandler
iGive.com
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
We’re using it, no observed problems. Latest Declude / Sniffer / Imail 2006.2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephan
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:03 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 2006.2
Has an
Hi
We're getting certain e-mails whitelisted, and I'm not able to find where
we've done that to ourselves.
Here's a line from a whitelist entry I CAN find:
Skipping3 E-mail from IP 208.100.26.91; whitelisted [208.100.26.91]
Here's a line from the whitelist entry I CANNOT find:
Skipping4 E-mail
Hi
We're seeing bounce messages similar to the following. I don't think our
server has been compromised, but I want to be sure. We legitimately send
mail from 208.100.26.91, but I think (hope) its appearance in the following
is spoofed.
==
is entirely fake. The army isn't going to be breaking down your door
and making you eat this spam.
Andrew 8)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert Grosshandler
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:39 AM
> To
Fwiw it worked for us.
.. Original Message ...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:11:57 -0400 "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I attempted to install this update on my server. The package is apparently
missing a DLL. The decludeproc service would not start, and the pop-up said
to contact
Hi
We get e-mails that contain the following header (or something similar):
Received: from igive.com [71.250.241.101] by smtp.igive.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD-9.20)
The 71.xxx.xxx.xxx isn't ours. That IP can vary, but it is never ours.
Are there any legit mailers that would send something in this
15 IS igive.com
Set it at your hold weight. Your actual server(s) IP addresses should already
be whitelisted so it will not affect your internal mail routing.
Kevin Bilbee
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Robert Grosshandl
Hi All -
Our opt-in newsletter is being rejected by users with Barracuda firewalls as
"spam". I'm looking for a single place to report this / request to be
whitelisted at Barracuda, and I'm having no luck.
Any pointers appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Rob
Robert N. Gros
We're really happy with gammadyne mailer. www.gammadyne.com
We send about 200K pieces a week, the db is sql server.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:29 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sub
There was discussion of this on a non-technical list I subscribe to. It
appears to be a true report. Blocking all IPs in the name of stopping spam.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Gufler
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:13 AM
Fwiw, it's the management of WT that's buying it out/back.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be
Ok -- time for the question again.
Thumbs up or down on the declude / smartermail integration?
Comments appreciated.
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTE
OT -- What are you moving your webtrends install to??
Do you use multiple servers?
Thanks,
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe
Why didn't you point your CF server at smartermail?
And, if I'm trying to reduce the new systems and learning curves, can I keep
Declude Virus and Junkmail going?
Thanks for the input.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Robertson
The following e-mail got tagged as spam, even though it was
from an authenticated send.
First, the imail log:
20050518 115243
127.0.0.1 SMTPD (72db5d54010e1dde)
[64.4.213.172] connect 184.122.4.102 port 2528 (this is a remote
user)20050518 115243 127.0.0.1 SMTPD
(72db5d54010
aha, I thought smtp auth trumped all. Makes
sense.
Is there a way to add negative weight to smtp auth
?
Thanks!!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
SchmidtSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:32 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.Jun
Hi all -
Turned on a backup mail server as my main server (imail 8.15 hf2) was acting
flakey. Main server has a wonderful combination of declude pro jm and av +
sniffer.
The backup server may not matter in this problem, but it's also Imail 8.l5
HF2. No declude or anything else running on it.
Hi
You are using both Sniffer and the Invariant Systems URI tests together?
Maybe I was even denser than I thought, but I thought they sort of
duplicated each other.
Thanks,
Rob
We have learned over the past year, that most of the built-in tests of
Declude are not effective like they were i
Hi
Are there any spam or virus tests that belong in Imail, rather than letting
Declude JM or AV handle it?
I use Declude Pro / Sniffer / Inviurbl / 2 AV scanners.
For instance, the tarpitting that Imail can do looks like a good thing.
Thanks,
Rob
www.iGive.com
---
[This E-mail scanned for vi
Are these the suggested defaults?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Barker
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:41 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com; Declude.Virus@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Beta 3.0.4.4 Posted
I have one outstanding issue -- not stability
related.
We're seeing some messages that exceed our hold or delete
weights get routed to our hold or delete folders without having their subjects
altered (we prepend "spam" to the subject line). They route
ok.
It does look like maybe the hea
They've got logs from me, lots of
logs!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 7:26 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Anyone
have any outstanding issues with the 3.0.5 release?
Hi
The problem of the routeto happening before the subject line has been
altered still exists in this newest version.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
No changes to the configs from prior versions. It only mangles one in 100,
and only for e-mails that trigger lots of tests.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:02 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declud
Yup, plus logs, etc. Putting it out here in case anybody else is seeing
same thing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:33 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Other
This has been a problem for awhile (happened with the move to the new
architecture, but Declude says it's not connected.)
The headers are "bad" when they make it to Declude, and Declude doesn't
handle them right.
Fortunately, in our setup, they all still get treated as very heavily
weighted spam,
ow in the Declude generated headers in
order to handle Blank Folding. IMO, Declude should just throw the headers
just before the location of the first or possibly following a
mistaken .
I haven't seen any Declude headers in the body using 2.0.6.16 and earlier.
Matt
Robert Grosshandler wro
Check out www.onebox.com (virtual receptionist). Combine it with vonage.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Beckstrom
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:23 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] WAY OT:
does it cost?
-d
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Grosshandler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] WAY OT: COVAD VOIP
> Check out www.onebox.com (virtual receptionist). Combine it with vonage.
>
&
Hi
Probably shouldn't have, but for some reason I downloaded latest and
greatest interim release.
Now, I'm getting 10 or so declude.exe instances, each using as much CPU time
as it can grab. The number seems to grow, never shrink.
No changes to filters, etc.
No volume increases that I'm seeing
Appears to be fixed.
Thanks, as always.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Multiple Declude Instances - i28
>Probably shouldn't
Scott, have you ever considered putting a "last edited" date in the stock
global.cfg? Also, possibly a "change notes / revision history" section
someplace in the top of the stock global.cfg?
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Pe
>From another list I get:
Quote ON
...we now have seven return codes, up from the previous four, and the
Received-SPF field is now more structured.
The total number of domains covered by SPF is actually much, much higher
than 7000. That number comes from self-reporting. The true number is
high
Built a filter:
SUBJECT -30 CONTAINS tunafish
Doesn't trigger.
BODY -30 CONTAINS tunafish
Triggers fine.
It could very well be me, but if so, I'm stumped as to why.
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://w
Sorry for false alarm, but I couldn't recreate this myself. Working now.
Rob
===
Built a filter:
SUBJECT -30 CONTAINS tunafish
Doesn't trigger.
BODY -30 CONTAINS tunafish
Triggers fine.
It could very well be me, but if so, I'm stumped as to why.
Rob
---
[Thi
No problems here. I use it, not extensively.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT Plaxo.com
Any one have any comments
Getting this error message in logs. Didn't see it last week. It was in the
last interim I was running, and it is in 1.79 beta. Don't find a reference
to it in the archives.
Don't recall making any change to global.cfg recently.
Here's a log snippet (logging set to debug):
04/06/2004 11:02:51.
Big Duh!!! Slapped my wrist, sorry for the dumb question.
Rob
>Rob, check your spelling of "ANYWHERE" there is a typo in it.
>Andrew 8)
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail
Hi Scott -
Since there does seem to be demand, and since you've indicated that you'll
consider this test, perhaps you can give us an estimate of when we might see
you integrate it?
I'm sure you have nothing else to do: the integration of your new web site
is done, you've new ownership and getting
Title: Message
John
is going to suggest Autowhite. He's biased, it's his
product.
We're a customer,
we're not biased . It's great.
Rob
Can anybody point me to an Earthlink resource that is similar to AOL's
Postmaster.aol.com?
I'm trying to avoid the spamblocker challenge/response stuff that Earthlink
uses, for our opt-in lists. AOL is doing a reasonable job at helping us get
mail through, so I wonder if there is something simila
Also, check out autowhite. It automatically whitelists an e-mail address
when you send e-mail to that address.
While it has more flexibility than that, that's the simplest description.
I immediately went to Outlook, and sent e-mail to anybody I cared about, and
now I know that I'll get whatever
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AUTO Whitelist question
Rob,
How does the AUTOWhite handle "spoofed" addressing when someone uses
my address to send email? Thanks for the aid.
Keith
-Original Message-----
From: Robert Grosshandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Title: Message
maybe
a bad idea -
We send out
e-mail that has a Variable Return Address, so that we can handle bounces
well. In our case, that address is a combo of letters and numbers (lots of
numbers sometimes). And, we work hard to make sure our mail is all
requested!
Other legit
Hi All -
Using Junkmail Standard, 1.76b
My outbound email from one of my servers is being tested, even though the IP
is whitelisted.
Headers:
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jHIT+dcx+fewo5BGJKz+DQX
Received: from ([correct IP here]) by mc11-f27.hotmail.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600);
Here's the conclusion to this, I think.
Alligate puts in headers in both incoming and outgoing email.
Declude runs tests, then ignores results, if whitelist is triggered.
So, I added some whitelist entries to Alligate, so it no longer tests the
email outgoing from my IPs.
Headers still get writt
Hi
Some large percentage of the spam we get comes to the backup MX and then is
relayed to the primary MX.
Using Declude JM Standard, is there some test I can use to add additional
weight to any mail routed through my backup MX?
Thanks,
Rob
==
Robert N. Gr
We do that already and it works fine. However, I know that there is a much
higher probability that any mail that passes through the backup MX is spam,
so I want to add additional weight just because it comes through the backup
MX.
Rob
Jeff wrote:
>Use the IPBYPASS %sec mx ip% feature within the
Yeah, but.
Declude Standard - no filters.
Otherwise, it would work. The idea is to add enough weight to bring it over
the edge.
A problem with the primary down test is that Declude is doing its scanning
on the primary, and it would never be down when Declude was scanning! So,
Declude would hav
I'm breaking down and getting Declude Pro.
In my back of the napkin analysis of the spam that is weighted in the gray
area (HOLD), but it is truly spam, some high percentage of it went straight
for my backup MX.
By adding a little bit of weight, I'm expecting that the total weight will
be suffici
Having just upgraded from JM Standard to Pro, I'm wondering about the best
way to approach some of the tests I previously set up.
Is there any difference between the following from a performance or
maintenance standpoint?:
Version A
Whitelist anywhere blahblah
Or
Version B
BODY -50 CONTAINS b
Great points.
I'm using your (I think it was your) Gibberish / Anti Gibberish tests
already.
It was the flexibility of the filter ability that caused me to plunk down
more money to the wonderful folks at Computer Horizons.
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E
Hi
The following headers tell the story. Anything I should be adding to add
weight to this? It didn't trigger Sniffer or Alligate, but that's a
different issue. The mailbox it was sent to was harvested from usenet, fwiw.
Thanks, Rob
Received: from standby2.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.58] by smtp.igi
Karen said:
>Buy a good AV scanner.
And I replied:
We use Frisk on the server, Norton on the desktop, neither flagged it.
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from
John provided a great filter, since fprot and Norton didn't see the probably
corrupt virus.
Thanks.
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mai
Todd Holt wrote:
>I have a customer that has 2 computers behind a d-link router
>implementing NAT. One computer works fine and can goto www.google.com
>just fine. The other computer, however, cannot.
>
This can be caused by a virus modifying the HOSTS file, and adding an
entry for google, et
We use both. We're happy with both. If both say e-mail is spam, it's spam.
Sniffer is updated many times per day, the update is triggered via an
e-mail.
We use Declude's weighting, so Sniffer plus lots of different test failures
equals spam.
Alligate plus lots of different test failures equals
Title: Message
If an
e-mail is sent to me, BCC'd to 5 other people in my domain, and BCC'd to 100
other people not in my domain, what number does BCC see?
5 or
100?
Thanks.
Rob
Title: Message
Hi
I have honeytraps
set up so that I can share the wonderful spam we get with one of our
vendors. It was set up prior to getting junkmail pro. Problem is, if
the spam is addressed to both a honeytrap address AND a real address, my
configuration means that the real address
We use Sonicwall, we're happy.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[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
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
Hiya All -
We're seeing outbound e-mail to AOL.com happening very, very slowly.
Our outbound server (64.4.213.165 / 64.4.213.169) appears to be configured
correctly (no problems last week, and no changes since then).
Anybody else seeing AOL delays today?
=
Rob
www.iGive
Brian wrote -
>The new test platforms will allow us to move some domains out of the normal
loop and we will be able to update the
>Declude version again (shortly we hope).
For those of us who use the Declude version of Alligate (alongside Sniffer)
we hope that's soon! It is great having two f
Negative weights on last hop only?
How would that affect a gateway (or e-mail that goes to a backup mail
server)?
Rob
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declu
Hi
I have
Whitelist revdns .befree.com
in my global.cfg.
The following e-mail didn't get whitelisted. When I check out the reverse
on it, I find that it is pg1bms00.bfast.com
So, if I add
Whitelist revdns .bfast.com I should be in better shape. Am I missing
anything?
Received: from PG1BMS
y spamming services, in which case, they picked the right spammer
to carry their messages.
Matt
Robert Grosshandler wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have
>Whitelist revdns .befree.com
>in my global.cfg.
>
>The following e-mail didn't get whitelisted. When I check out the
>reverse
4153859335"
This IP doesn't have a reverse dns. Just whitelisting 'befree.com' doesn't
work well, because there is a lot of spam that contains that phrase.
Thoughts welcomed. I know there is something easy to set up, but I'm
blanking at the moment.
Thanks ahe
I can't tell if they actually control that IP. If they did, I guess I
could.
--
-Would adding 66.207.130.10 into your host antispam trusted ip addresses
work?
~Rick
> Due to the nature of our business (online retail), we get
> some e-mail that triggers most content driven spam tes
Gents and the occasional lady:
You all are the smartest network folks I interact with. If you'd be so kind
as to give me your opinion / suggestions on the following, I'd be forever
grateful.
We're trying to increase the level of uptime and redundancy for our service.
To that end, we're looking t
More. Yahoo has whitelisting, and really cares about reverse DNS pointers
and Domain Keys. You might want to resubmit, they were fast for us way back
when.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
Andrew
Sent: Thursday, February 21,
Blocking Email
Rob,
We are using domain keys and reverse DNS as well as SPF records. Do you
have a link to where I would request the whitelisting?
Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
> Grosshandler
> Sent: Thursday,
Hi
We're getting spam that comes via Yahoo, looks good (but it isn't). We'd
like to up the score it receives, so it won't get passed through. We use
Sniffer/Declude/Inviurbl.
We're almost always Bcc'd.
Sometimes fails Sniffer, sometimes not (we've got a query into them, too.)
Doesn't always fai
t mailing list E-mail has many recipients not listed in the
headers.
BCC BCC 3 x 6 0
Where 3 is the number of BCC recipients and 6 is the weight given.
David B
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob
The PCRE for yahoo.co.uk might just be the ticket.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott
Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 8:58 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Need strategy to up score.
Hi All -
Rather than learn something new (my brain is overfull, and still feels
empty), I'm hoping somebody has a filter or guidance for the following need.
I don't want to move to per-user configurations if I can help it.
I'd like to have a filter that adds weight when an email fails a particula
Sounds like a spam headline, doesnt it?
Anyway, were getting obvious spam, but were not able to weight it enough
to block it. Any tests you might suggest. The following came to us BCCd,
I believe. Nothing about it was appropriate for us.
Here are the headers:
Received: from etkin
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
