Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jongrose

SpamAssassin v3.1.0 on one spam, and v.3.1.1 on another?

Recommended Posts

I just logged into my webmail account and had a uce setting in my inbox. I opened it up to manually reported it and noticed this.

Received: (qmail 2434 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2006 01:28:46 -0000

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on filter7

X-spam-Level:

X-spam-Status: hits=0.0 tests=none version=3.1.0

Here is a link to the report:

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1123505239z8...bf199693535521z

Then, I went into my held mail folder, and opened up the first message there, and the headers showed it was filtered with Spamassassin 3.1.1. I noticed the news said that the sysops added some more filtering servers, so I assume that an older version of Spamassassin was installed on these?

The first email says filter7, the other email says blade, which is what it what it usually says.

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade1

X-spam-Level: *****

X-spam-Status: hits=6.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX,FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,

SARE_CSBIG,TW_DN version=3.1.1

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1123509382z1...d4dcbf34c338c1z

I also see a message from filter7 that has Spamassassin 3.1.0, so I assume that is what the problem is, the new filters have older copies of the software installed.

Just thought I'd let you guys know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you 'just logged on' then you should have also seen the recent 'news' postings on that front page. I thought I'd be nive and also bring them to the Forum, posting them as Pinned items so that they'd be easy to see by most, having to scroll by them ....

However, I can see that the efforts to lets folks now what's going on somehow mised your eyes ... I can't explain how you'd have missed the 'news' posting ... but the Pinned items here .. that's pretty easy .. you posted this into the Reporting Gelp Forum section .. but the subject matter deals with the SpamCop E-mail System & Account stuff ... with this post, I'm moving this Topic to that 'matching' Forum section ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you 'just logged on' then you should have also seen the recent 'news' postings on that front page. I thought I'd be nive and also bring them to the Forum, posting them as Pinned items so that they'd be easy to see by most, having to scroll by them ....

However, I can see that the efforts to lets folks now what's going on somehow mised your eyes ... I can't explain how you'd have missed the 'news' posting ... but the Pinned items here .. that's pretty easy .. you posted this into the Reporting Gelp Forum section .. but the subject matter deals with the SpamCop E-mail System & Account stuff ... with this post, I'm moving this Topic to that 'matching' Forum section ....

I'm sorry, I don't understand your response. :mellow:

I noticed the news said that the sysops added some more filtering servers, so I assume that an older version of Spamassassin was installed on these?

Oct 31, 2006

* [20:04 EST] MAIL DELAYS UPDATE: In the past two weeks, ISPs have reported a large increase in the amount of spam received. We have experienced the same problem and many people are probably seeing a lot more spam in their Held Mail. These high volumes have occasionally led to delivery delays as we process all the mail. Late today, we put online more filtering servers, which should significantly increase our capacity. We're always working on improving our filtering and keeping deliveries delay-free. Thank you for your patience the last couple of weeks while we worked on deploying the new systems.

So, the purpose of my posting was to notify the administrators of SpamCop that there is an older version of SpamAssassin installed on the new filter servers. Is this the wrong place to post this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, I don't understand your response. :mellow:

So, the purpose of my posting was to notify the administrators of SpamCop that there is an older version of SpamAssassin installed on the new filter servers. Is this the wrong place to post this?

You posted into SpamCop Discussion > Discussions & Observations > SpamCop Reporting Help

I moved the Topic into SpamCop Discussion > Discussions & Observations > SpamCop Email System & Accounts

The "Administrators of Spamcop" ..????

Section 8 - SpamCop's System & Active Staff User Guide

SpamCop Staff

Not finding the Help you need?

Tried to point out in several places that there is just the one guy handling the e-mail side of the house. The new servers were just placed on-line .. the first 'test' is to ensure that they are working, integrated, etc.

The 'whole' of a SpamAssassin install also includes options of other 'filter packs' .. langiage packs .. on and on ... these can be added in as time goes on.

Your posting 'here' does give a heads-up to other users (ignoring that it wasn't placed into the Forum that those dedicated to only "e-mail account" issues would stumble across it) .. so thanks for that. However, as a means of direct, instant contact to JT .. no, this won't work in general ....

That said, I did kick out an e-mail to advise him of your 'discovered problem' ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The servers with "blade" in their names all seem to be running 3.1.1 (since about March 20th 2006), but I can confirm that two of the new boxes, "filter7" and "filter8" are running 3.1.0. However, I looked at some items that got through to my inbox overnight and on almost identical spam items, the "filter" servers actually had given a higher score than blade1 did, which is a bit counter-intuitive.

So, I looked into my Held Mail and did a little more analysis. I have six similar "Investment Strategy" spams (all identical subjects and almost identical spam bodies, except for the URLs). Here are the receipt times, server names, and SA analyses from these items:

Received: (qmail 29336 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2006 17:05:28 -0000
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade6
X-spam-Level: *********************
X-spam-Status: hits=21.6 tests=SARE_CSNUMTAG,SARE_RMML_Stock4,
	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_JP_SURBL,
	URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.1

Received: (qmail 2814 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2006 20:16:37 -0000
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on filter8
X-spam-Level: *****************
X-spam-Status: hits=17.5 tests=SARE_CSNUMTAG,SARE_RMML_Stock4,
	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,
	URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.0

Received: (qmail 7781 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2006 10:19:06 -0000
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade5
X-spam-Level: *********************
X-spam-Status: hits=21.6 tests=SARE_CSNUMTAG,SARE_RMML_Stock4,
	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_JP_SURBL,
	URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.1

Received: (qmail 14712 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2006 10:18:09 -0000
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade1
X-spam-Level: *********************
X-spam-Status: hits=21.6 tests=SARE_CSNUMTAG,SARE_RMML_Stock4,
	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_JP_SURBL,
	URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.1

Received: (qmail 15251 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2006 10:19:16 -0000
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade1
X-spam-Level: *********************
X-spam-Status: hits=21.6 tests=SARE_CSNUMTAG,SARE_RMML_Stock4,
	UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_JP_SURBL,
	URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.1

Received: (qmail 21148 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2006 11:14:12 -0000
X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on filter7
X-spam-Level: ****************
X-spam-Status: hits=16.2 tests=SARE_RMML_Stock4,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,
	URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,
	URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.0

There does seem to be a bit of inconsistency, and the "blade" servers came out ahead, specifically because the "filter" servers didn't seem to know about the "URIBL_BLACK" test that the blade servers identified. The only other difference was the the last one, processed by "filter7" is missing the "SARE_CSNUMTAG" flag, but it's possible that there was something different about that item.

So, I'd say this small, but carefully selected sample, might indicate that there's some work to be done to make the filtering on all of the servers equal to one another, but I'm speaking as a person who has never installed or configured SpamAssassin. :-)

Wazoo....wanna kick this to JT also, or should I send him an email?

DT

Edited by DavidT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a little more inconsistency, though not a major one. blade2 and blade3 both present the FQDN in the X-spam-Checker-Version: line. All the others simply present the server name.

It just seems to further indicate that the servers are all not using the same configuration file. I have never setup and configured a spamassassin server, but I have done other parallel processing systems and one thing I always made sure of is that each system was using the same configuration.

Wazoo, I assume you directed JT to this thread. Otherwise I will bring the information to JT's attention directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just seems to further indicate that the servers are all not using the same configuration file. I have never setup and configured a spamassassin server, but I have done other parallel processing systems and one thing I always made sure of is that each system was using the same configuration.
Believe it or not, thats a whole lot more difficult that it would seem especially as the number of servers increase and there are differences in the hardware configueration of each. So one trys to match them as close as possible, but working on a problem of one server and fixing that, then going to another problem and fixing that, one quickly finds that the result is a bunch of servers that are all setup somewhat differently.

In the ideal world one would buy ALL new equipment and set them up all the same, but in the REAL world that most of us live in, that is usually not possible. You are happy if you can just keep them all working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the REAL world that most of us live in, that is usually not possible. You are happy if you can just keep them all working.

No offense, but I work in the REAL world. It sounds like you need better change management policies. The "fix" is not done until all servers are updated, especially for a software configuration file, which I am assuming SpamAssassin is using. Some systems, we keep the master file on a fileserver and the server itself checks there for updates. OSes are a bit more difficult, especially if they have different functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wazoo, I assume you directed JT to this thread. Otherwise I will bring the information to JT's attention directly.

From: "WazoO"

To: "SpamCop Support"

References: <001501c6fe4e$17044da0$6401a8c0[at]msi6378> <454A9FB7.90903[at]spamcop.net>

Subject: Re: SpamAssassin versions

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:17:52 -0600

There was a later post, pointing out some differences in the add-ons ...

"There does seem to be a bit of inconsistency, and the "blade" servers came

out ahead, specifically because the "filter" servers didn't seem to know

about the "URIBL_BLACK" test that the blade servers identified. The only

other difference was the the last one, processed by "filter7" is missing the

"SARE_CSNUMTAG" flag, but it's possible that there was something different

about that item."

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=7388

offers up a list of servers and 'includes' ....

----- Original Message -----

From: "SpamCop Support"

To: "WazoO"

Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:47 PM

Subject: Re: SpamAssassin versions

> OK, this may or may not be an issue. I can say that the rules are up to

> date. The engine may be a little older. I'll take a look.

>

> Jeff

>

> WazoO wrote:

> > First 'note' about the new e-mail servers was that the new

> > servers appear to be running an older version of

> > SpamAssassin. I pointed out that just making sire

> > that they were working at all was the first 'phase' ..

> > upgrading and adding in other add-on packages

> > could come in at most any time after ...

> >

> > I said I'd pass this on ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:59:41 -0500

From: SpamCop Support

To: WazoO

Subject: Re: SpamAssassin versions

References: <001501c6fe4e$17044da0$6401a8c0[at]msi6378> <454A9FB7.90903[at]spamcop.net> <00b901c6feee$44a0d3a0$6401a8c0[at]msi6378>

OK, the new servers are updated and should have all the scoring that the

older ones do.

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, the new servers are updated and should have all the scoring that the older ones do.

Except that they don't, and I have proof, so Wazoo, please remove the "Resolved" from this topic. Here's why...

After some of us complained about stale SpamAssassin installations on "filter7" and "filter8" (the new servers), and an intial denial of any problem, the new servers have now been "leapfrogged" to a newer release of SA than the one on all the servers named "blade#." The "blade" servers still have "SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10)" (from March 2006) while the "filter#" servers both now have "SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26)" (from July). I checked the various download mirror sites, and it looks like there have been subsequent releases in August and October, although I'm not sure if I was looking at the correct repository or not.

As for the spam scoring ramifications, here are the scoring details on identical spams:

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on filter8

X-spam-Level: ******************

X-spam-Status: hits=18.1 tests=SARE_RMML_Stock4,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,

URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,

URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.4

X-spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on blade1

X-spam-Level: *****************

X-spam-Status: hits=17.7 tests=SARE_RMML_Stock4,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,

URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,

URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL version=3.1.1

These are both from "Subject: Investment Strategy" spams that have been arriving in droves in my Held Mail, so I have multiple copies for header analysis. I could show you the others, but they were all scored the same way by the various "blades" and "filters," with the "filters" now producing (slightly) higher scores. That contradicts the most recent message you've posted here from JT, Wazoo.

I sent my previous detailed info to JT last week and he didn't respond to me at all, no acknowledgement whatsoever, so I guess that instead of wasting my time sending it to him, I'll ask you to get his attention back on this once again. Tell him I'd be happy to share my latest evidence with him, if he would deign to send me an email.

Over and out,

DT

ps - not logging in here much lately due to some unfortunate treatment, but I'll check back in a few days for any response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to check on this, as promised, but there's been no change on what I've seen from the servers. They still appear to be running different SA versions, and as I mentioned, I've not had any luck dealing directly with JT on this. Wazoo, have you pinged him again about this? Please?

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got in touch directly with JT on this and he responded today. He acknowledged that the new servers are currently running a more recent update of SpamAssassin and said that the original servers would be updated at "some point" but they have to proceed carefully with that due to the possibility of service interruptions.

So, for the time being, identical spam messages may receive slightly different scores, depending upon which server happens to "answer the phone," but it's not a major problem, and is at least acknowledged, which is always nice. Being ignored isn't.

DT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got in touch directly with JT on this and he responded today. He acknowledged that the new servers are currently running a more recent update of SpamAssassin and said that the original servers would be updated at "some point" but they have to proceed carefully with that due to the possibility of service interruptions.

So, for the time being, identical spam messages may receive slightly different scores, depending upon which server happens to "answer the phone," but it's not a major problem, and is at least acknowledged, which is always nice. Being ignored isn't.

Good to hear. Thanks for taking the time to help resolve the issue for us. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seconded .... I can't conjure up replies whan I don't get answers either ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is the wrong section, I wasn't sure if this should be under reporting or email, but since it seems to be an error in one of the receiving servers, I thought this was the appropriate place.

Today I have received 2 spam emails in my inbox that passed through filter8.cesmail.net and SpamAssassin isn't mentioned anywhere in the headers.

Return-Path: <KEVOMELA[at]YAHOO.COM>

Delivered-To: spamcop-net-x

Received: (qmail 11495 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2006 17:26:49 -0000

Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)

by filter8.cesmail.net with QMQP; 5 Dec 2006 17:26:49 -0000

Received: from cp351291-a.mill1.nb.home.nl (HELO mx2.spamcop.net) (84.29.190.30)

by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 5 Dec 2006 17:26:47 -0000

Reply-to: "BOBBY KAMAU" <KEVOMELA[at]YAHOO.COM>

From: "BOBBY KAMAU" <KEVOMELA[at]YAHOO.COM>

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 18:16:23 +0100

Message-ID: <3855_____________________________5828[at]YAHOO.COM>

To: "x" <x>

Subject: Hey Benjamin, check mail

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/related;

boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_6D40CD10.0376433F"

X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 84.29.190.30

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1156864402z1...;action=display

Return-Path: <Snydersredheaded[at]ableroof.com>

Delivered-To: x

Received: (qmail 25399 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2006 21:14:50 -0000

Received: from unknown (192.168.1.103)

by filter8.cesmail.net with QMQP; 5 Dec 2006 21:14:50 -0000

Received: from 71-223-80-194.phnx.qwest.net (71.223.80.194)

by mx53.cesmail.net with SMTP; 5 Dec 2006 21:14:50 -0000

Return-Path: <Snyder'sredheaded[at]ableroof.com>

Received: from 208.44.158.170 (HELO colexc01.ableroof.com)

by spamcop.net with esmtp (IYKR7P<C0 *86=1)

id 49L,15-B,=20+-DY

for x; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:14:49 +0420

From: "Audrey Bain" <Snyder'sredheaded[at]ableroof.com>

To: <x>

Subject: it's me Audrey

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:14:49 +0420

Message-ID: <01c7__________________2ecf[at]Snyder'sredheaded>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="windows-1250"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807

Thread-Index: Aca6Q,BPQ459JI312,;N0HE3BI.ITM==

X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.103 71.223.80.194 208.44.158.170

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1156881419z3...;action=display

I haven't noticed this on another blade server, so it appears from what I've seen, to be isolated to this server. Don't know if it's been resolved or any other servers are affected, but hopefully can someone can forward this off to one of the deputies or server admins and check into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is the wrong section, I wasn't sure if this should be under reporting or email, but since it seems to be an error in one of the receiving servers, I thought this was the appropriate place.

Today I have received 2 spam emails in my inbox that passed through filter8.cesmail.net and SpamAssassin isn't mentioned anywhere in the headers.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1156864402z1...;action=display

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1156881419z3...;action=display

I haven't noticed this on another blade server, so it appears from what I've seen, to be isolated to this server. Don't know if it's been resolved or any other servers are affected, but hopefully can someone can forward this off to one of the deputies or server admins and check into this.

The last filter8 message I found was from yesterday and it did pass through SA at that time: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1155761790ze...1cf400786e27c0z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last filter8 message I found was from yesterday and it did pass through SA at that time: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1155761790ze...1cf400786e27c0z

It looks like (if I am reading the timestamps correctly) that my messages were received after yours. I'll keep watching my inbox and heldmail folders and see if the issue comes up again. I did notice one email in my heldmail folder that passed through filter8, but was blocked by the SpamCop BL. It didn't have any SA markings though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks like (if I am reading the timestamps correctly) that my messages were received after yours. I'll keep watching my inbox and heldmail folders and see if the issue comes up again. I did notice one email in my heldmail folder that passed through filter8, but was blocked by the SpamCop BL. It didn't have any SA markings though.

It is possible that SA is not working on that server. I will send a quick message to JT about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is possible that SA is not working on that server. I will send a quick message to JT about it.

Thanks for that.

Here are two more examples on spams I just received. One was blocked by an external BL, the other went straight to my inbox. As you can see, both are on filter8. All other servers seem to be working fine.

Return-Path: <swinto[at]telia.com>

Delivered-To: spamcop-net-x

Received: (qmail 3737 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2006 14:51:01 -0000

Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)

by filter8.cesmail.net with QMQP; 6 Dec 2006 14:51:01 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO mx.spamcop.net) (221.226.124.187)

by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 6 Dec 2006 14:50:58 -0000

Reply-to: "rggateh hsrht" <swinto[at]telia.com>

From: "rggateh hsrht" <swinto[at]telia.com>

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:37:49 +0800

Message-ID: <1684____________________________8982[at]telia.com>

To: "x" <x>

Content-type: text/html;

Charset=Windows-1251

Subject: Carie

X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 221.226.124.187

X-SpamCop-Disposition: Blocked cn.countries.nerd.dk

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1157144227zb...;action=display

Return-Path: <andy886423[at]aol.com>

Delivered-To: spamcop-net-x

Received: (qmail 12677 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2006 15:41:02 -0000

Received: from unknown (192.168.1.101)

by filter8.cesmail.net with QMQP; 6 Dec 2006 15:41:02 -0000

Received: from 201-92-123-67.dsl.telesp.net.br (HELO mx.spamcop.net) (201.92.123.67)

by mailgate.cesmail.net with SMTP; 6 Dec 2006 15:41:01 -0000

Reply-to: "A C" <andy886423[at]aol.com>

From: "A C" <andy886423[at]aol.com>

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:28:48 -0200

Message-ID: <6089_____________________________4147[at]aol.com>

To: "x" <x>

Content-type: text/html;

Charset=Windows-1251

Subject: Deidra

X-SpamCop-Checked: 192.168.1.101 201.92.123.67

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1157158272z0...;action=display

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sent the email, no reply (yet, as expected).

Just received the following reply:

Thanks, that also explains a problem I've been having with that machine

all day. Should be fixed. Let me know right away if you guys still see

problems.

Jeff

Since he is asking for more input, I am posting it here.

Hint: 2 lines of text and pointing him here for full explaination gets a faster response ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of sometime today, some of my incoming mail is no longer being filtered by SpamAssassin. I have verified that SA is still checked in my filter list, but the headers show no SA check is being done. Other messages coming in are SA-filtered.

Looking at the headers, if a message passed through blade4.cesmail.net, it gets filtered, but filter7.cesmail.net does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As of sometime today, some of my incoming mail is no longer being filtered by SpamAssassin. I have verified that SA is still checked in my filter list, but the headers show no SA check is being done. Other messages coming in are SA-filtered.

Looking at the headers, if a message passed through blade4.cesmail.net, it gets filtered, but filter7.cesmail.net does not.

I can confirm this is happening again since at least yesterday. There was a time within the last month??? where this was happening. Sending an email off to JT to check things out.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1182216992z6...0685baceac194az

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the headers, if a message passed through blade4.cesmail.net, it gets filtered, but filter7.cesmail.net does not.

PM sent to advise of the merging of this 'new' Topic into an existing one that addresses the same issue/solution ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×