Search Results

Search found 2676 results on 108 pages for 'spam blocking'.

Page 18/108 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

• Blocking yandex.ru bot

  - by Ross

  I want to block all request from yandex.ru search bot. It is very traffic intensive (2GB/day). I first blocked one C class IP range, but it seems this bot appear from different IP ranges. For example: spider31.yandex.ru - 77.88.26.27 spider79.yandex.ru - 95.108.155.251 etc.. I can put some deny in robots.txt but not sure if it respect this. I am thinking of blocking a list of IP ranges. Can somebody suggest some general solution.

  Read the article

• How to create a shared lock blocking an intent exclusive lock

  - by FremenFreedom

  As I understand it, a SELECT statement will place a shared lock on the rows that it will return. While that SELECT is running, if an UPDATE statement comes along and needs to grab an intent exclusive lock then that UPDATE statement will need to wait until the SELECT statement releases its shared locks. I am trying to test this SELECT shared lock thing by doing a BEGIN TRAN and then running a SELECT, not COMMITing, and then running an UPDATE in another session on the exact same row. The UPDATE worked fine -- no lock, no wait. So this must not be a valid way to simulate a shared lock blocking an intent exclusive lock? Can you give me a scenario where I can create a lock with a SELECT that would force an UPDATE to wait? I'm working with SQL Server 2000 and 2005 across a linked server: the table is on the 2005 instance, the select is happening on 2000, and the update is executed from 2005. All in SSMS 2005.

  Read the article

• PHP Mail() to Gmail = Spam

  - by grantw

  Recently Gmail has started marking emails sent directly from my server (using php mail()) as spam and I'm having problems trying to find the issue. If I send an exact copy of the same email from my email client it goes to the Gmail inbox. The emails are plain text, around 7 lines long and contain a URL link in plain text. As the emails sent from my client are getting through fine I'm thinking that the content isn't the issue. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could take a look at the the following headers and give me some advice why the email from the server is being marked as spam. Email from Server: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.49.98.228 with SMTP id el4csp101784qeb; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:58:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.27.166 with SMTP id u6mr2296595oeg.86.1353020331940; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:58:51 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: [email protected] Received: from dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk (dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk. [174.120.246.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id df4si17005013obc.50.2012.11.15.14.58.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:58:51 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) client-ip=174.120.246.138; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass [email protected] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=domainbrokerage.co.uk; s=default; h=Date:Message-Id:Content-Type:Reply-to:From:Subject:To; bh=2RJ9jsEaGcdcgJ1HMJgQG8QNvWevySWXIFRDqdY7EAM=; b=mGebBVOkyUhv94ONL3EabXeTgVznsT1VAwPdVvpOGDdjBtN1FabnuFi8sWbf5KEg5BUJ/h8fQ+9/2nrj+jbtoVLvKXI6L53HOXPjl7atCX9e41GkrOTAPw5ZFp+1lDbZ; Received: from grantw by dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from [email protected]) id 1TZ8OZ-0008qC-Gy for [email protected]; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:58:51 +0000 To: [email protected] Subject: Offer Accepted X-PHP-Script: www.domainbrokerage.co.uk/admin.php for 95.172.231.27 From: My Name [email protected] Reply-to: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251 Message-Id: [email protected] Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:58:51 +0000 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [500 500] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - domainbrokerage.co.uk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk: authenticated_id: grantw/from_h Email from client: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.49.98.228 with SMTP id el4csp101495qeb; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.197.8 with SMTP id iq8mr2351185obc.66.1353020089244; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:54:49 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: [email protected] Received: from dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk (dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk. [174.120.246.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ab5si17000486obc.44.2012.11.15.14.54.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) client-ip=174.120.246.138; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.120.246.138 as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass [email protected] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=domainbrokerage.co.uk; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=bKNjm+yTFZQ7HUjO3lKPp9HosUBfFxv9+oqV+NuIkdU=; b=j0T2XNBuENSFG85QWeRdJ2MUgW2BvGROBNL3zvjwOLoFeyHRU3B4M+lt6m1X+OLHfJJqcoR0+GS9p/TWn4jylKCF13xozAOc6ewZ3/4Xj/YUDXuHkzmCMiNxVcGETD7l; Received: from w-27.cust-7941.ip.static.uno.uk.net ([95.172.231.27]:1450 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from [email protected]) id 1TZ8Ke-0001XH-7p for [email protected]; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: [email protected] Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:54:50 +0000 From: My Name [email protected] User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.6 (Windows/20121031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [email protected] Subject: Offer Accepted Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - domainbrokerage.co.uk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: dom.domainbrokerage.co.uk: authenticated_id: [email protected]

  Read the article

• Windows 7 Group Policy blocking Adobe Reader

  - by Danny Chia

  A few weeks ago, my company blocked Adobe Reader due to an unpatched security issue. However, we recently moved one of our computers to a project that didn't require access to the corporate network, and IT gave us the green light to override Group Policy and re-enable Adobe Reader. However, this is something we've been unable to achieve. We've tried the following (in no particular order), all to no avail: Ran the program as administrator Renamed the program (the blocking is likely signature-based) Deleted registry.pol Changed the value of "Start" in \HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\CurrentControlSet\services\gpsvc to "4" (to prevent group policy from applying, even though it's no longer on the corporate domain) Checked SRP settings under Local Security Policy - nothing was there Checked AppLocker settings under Local Security Policy - nothing there either Incidentally, I found a few registry keys with descriptions referring to Adobe Reader being blocked. I deleted all of them, but it didn't help. Changed the permission settings of the program Re-installed Adobe Reader Is there anything I missed, short of doing a clean install?

  Read the article

• IE6 blocking all intranet cookies.. please help

  - by BillMan

  So today, IE6 just suddenly started blocking cookies in my local intranet. It accepts cookies from the internet zone just fine. I tried overriding all the cookies policies with no help (adding my site, etc). When looking why the cookies are blocked, I get messages saying that "IE couldn't find privacy policy for http://mysite...". This is killing me.. been reading a couple knowledge base articles about deleting registry keys, and nothing has worked. Any help would be appreciated. Probably related, I was using the IE developer toolbar yesterday to test the behavior of browsers with cookies disabled. Now the option to disable cookies just has a "-" next to it. I removed the toolbar to see if that helped.. nothing..

  Read the article

• Spam issues while using Postfix as a two-way relay

  - by BenGC

  I want to use a Postfix box to do two things: Relay mail from any host on the internet addressed to one of my domains to my Zimbra server Relay mail from my Zimbra server to any address on the internet. To try and accomplish this I have configured Postfix thusly: mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8, zimbra_ip/32 myorigin = zimbra_server mydestination = localhost, zimbra_server relay_domains = example.com example.org transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport_map local_transport = error:no mailboxes on this host transport_map looks like this: example.com smtp:[zimbra_server] example.org smtp:[zimbra_server] Now, this works and passes the Open Relay tests. However, I am seeing in the maillog that the server is relaying spam that has a From: address of <> to domains that are not mine. How do I stop this behavior?

  Read the article

• Blocking the Apple OS X App Store

  - by Jon Rhoades

  Being the evil corporate IT overlords we need to block the new OS X App Store. As you may be aware the 10.6.6 update installs the App Store App which allows users to download and install apps without admin privileges. Some Suggestions: Don't update to 10.6.6+ Use parental controls Presumably some OD policy (if you have an OD server which we don't) Block the App store by DNS or Proxy Not updating to 10.6.6+ isn't really a long term solution as it contains security fixes and new Macs will come with it anyway. Blocking the App store at a network level doesn't solve laptop users. Ideally a simple system preference or editing of a plist that can be pushed out by ARD would be the best solution. Please note the question isn't should we block the App store, it's how we can block the App store.

  Read the article

• What tangible security are gained by blocking all but a few outgoing ports in a firewall

  - by Frankie Dintino

  Our current hardware firewall allows for blocking incoming and outgoing ports. We have two possibilities: Block certain troublesome ports (unsecured smtp, bittorrent, etc.) Block all but a few approved ports (http, https, ssh, imap-ssl, etc.) I see several downsides with option 2. Occasionally web servers are hosted on non-standard ports and we would have to deal with the resulting issues. Also, there is nothing preventing a malicious or unwanted service from being hosted on port 80, for instance. What are are the upsides?

  Read the article

• Icinga notifications are being marked as spam when sent to my mailbox

  - by user784637

  I'm using gmail and my domain is foo.com About half the notifications from my icinga server, [email protected] go to my spam folder for [email protected] Received-SPF: fail (google.com: domain of [email protected] does not designate <ip6> as permitted sender) client-ip=<ip6>; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=hardfail (google.com: domain of [email protected] does not designate <ip6> as permitted sender) [email protected] Is my current SPF record set up to allow my icinga server with the ip <ip4> and <ip6> to send email from the domain foo.com? ;; ANSWER SECTION: foo.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:<ip4> ip6:<ip6> -all"

  Read the article

• Blocking a country (mass iP Ranges), best practice for the actual block

  - by kwiksand

  Hi all, This question has obviously been asked many times in many different forms, but I can't find an actual answer to the specific plan I've got. We run a popular European Commercial deals site, and are getting a large amount of incoming registrations/traffic from countries who cannot even take part in the deals we offer (and many of the retailers aren't even known outside Western Europe). I've identified the problem area to block a lot of this traffic, but (as expected) there are thousands of ip ranges required. My question now (finally!). On a test server, I created a script to block each range within iptables, but the amount of time it took to add the rules was large, and then iptables was unresponsive after this (especially when attempting a iptables -L). What is the most efficient way of blocking large numbers of ip ranges: iptables? Or a plugin where I can preload them efficiantly? hosts.deny? .htaccess (nasty as I'd be running it in apache on every load balanced web server)? Cheers

  Read the article

• Sonicwall Enhanced With One-To-One NAT, Firewall Blocking Everything

  - by Justin

  Hello, just migrated from a Sonicwall TZ180 (Standard) to a Sonicwall TZ200 (Enhanced). Everything is working except the firewall rules are blocking everything. All hosts are online, and being assigned correct ip addresses. I can browse the internet on the hosts. I am using one-to-one NAT translating public ip addresses to private. 64.87.28.98 -> 192.168.1.2 64.87.28.99 -> 192.168.1.3 etc First order of business is to get ping working. My rule is in the new firewall is (FROM WAN to LAN): SOURCE DESTINATION SERVICE ACTION USERS ANY 192.168.1.2-192.168.1.6 PING ALLOW ALL This should be working, but not. I even tried changing the destination to the public ip addresses, but still no luck. SOURCE DESTINATION SERVICE ACTION USERS ANY 64.87.28.98-64.87.28.106 PING ALLOW ALL Any ideas what I am doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Gmail flagging emails as spam despite SPF being enabled and working perfectly

  - by Asif

  I have a website where people can recommend contents to their friends using their email. The issue is that emails are being flagged as spam whereas if I do the same from my development machine things are working out fine. I have enabled SPF and it is perfect. When sending through website, the email appears as this in Gmail Inbox: From [email protected] to [email protected]. When I send it from my development machine it appears as : From xyz.com via mywebsite.com to [email protected] mailed by mywebsite.com and this is exactly how I envisioned it. From what little I could figure out by looking at the source of emails in Gmail is that when sending from my development machine Gmail correctly recognizes my domain as mywebsite.com for which SPF is enabled and hence it treats it as genuine email. Whereas Gmail recognizes my domain as [email protected] when sent through the website. Can someone tell me why it does so? Any help would be really appreciated.

  Read the article

• Blocking IP's Nginx behind proxy

  - by FunkyChicken

  I'm running a Nginx 1.2.4 webserver here, and I'm behind a proxy of my hoster to prevent ddos attacks. The downside of being behind this proxy is that I need to get the REAL IP information from an extra header. In PHP it works great by doing $_SERVER[HTTP_X_REAL_IP] for example. Now before I was behind this proxy of my hoster I had a very effective way of blocking certain IP's by doing this: include /etc/nginx/block.conf and to allow/deny IP's there. But now due to the proxy, Nginx sees all traffic coming from 1 IP. Is there a way I can get Nginx to read the IP's like how PHP does, with the X-REAL-IP header?

  Read the article

• Blocking apache access via user agent string

  - by Tchalvak

  I've got a scripter who is using a proxy to attack a website I'm serving. I've noticed that they tend to access the site via software with a certain common user agent string (i.e. http://www.itsecteam.com/en/projects/project1_page2.htm "Havij advanced sql injection software" with a user_agent string of Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Havij). I'm aware that any cracking software worth it's salt will probably be able to modify it's user agent string, but I'm fine with the scripter having to deal with that feature at some point. So, is there any software out there for automatically blocking access & permanently blacklisting by matching user agent strings?

  Read the article

• Mac firewall blocking nginx (port 80) from external side

  - by Alex Ionescu

  I installed nginx using ports and started it with sudo. Accessing the nginx welcome page from localhost works perfectly, however accessing it from an external computer fails. Doing an nmap on the computer from the outside reveals 80/tcp filtered http So clearly the mac firewall is blocking the port. I then proceed to add the nginx executable to the firewall exception list as seen in this image, however the nmap still shows up as port 80 being filtered and I'm unable to access the webpage. The exact binary that is in the list is /opt/local/sbin/nginx which to my knowledge seems correct Any ideas what I should do? Thanks! P.S. Turning the firewall off does allow me to access the website from the outside world, however that isn't an ideal solution.

  Read the article

• Firewall still blocking port 53 despite listing otherwise?

  - by Tom

  I have 3 nodes with virtually the same iptables rules loaded from a bash script, but one particular node is blocking traffic on port 53 despite listing it's accepting it: $ iptables --list -v Chain INPUT (policy DROP 8886 packets, 657K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo any anywhere anywhere 2 122 ACCEPT icmp -- any any anywhere anywhere icmp echo-request 20738 5600K ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- eth1 any anywhere node1.com multiport dports http,smtp 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- eth1 any anywhere ns.node1.com udp dpt:domain 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- eth1 any anywhere ns.node1.com tcp dpt:domain 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 any node2.backend anywhere 21 1260 ACCEPT all -- eth0 any node3.backend anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 any node4.backend anywhere Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 15804 packets, 26M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination nmap -sV -p 53 ns.node1.com // From remote server Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2011-02-24 11:44 EST Interesting ports on ns.node1.com (1.2.3.4): PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 53/tcp filtered domain Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.336 seconds Any ideas? Thanks

  Read the article

• Firestarted Blocking DHCP?

  - by Chiggins

  Alright so on my Ubuntu laptop I get a wireless internet signal, and then distribute it to a switch where my other computers are connected. I also have Firestarter installed on the laptop. I have a problem where the only way that one of my client computers try to get an IP and such from my laptop, it can't because Firestarter is blocking it somehow. I have to stop the firewall in Firestarter, then connect from a client. It connects right away, then I turn Firestarter back on. In the preferences there is an option in "Firewall" called "Start/restart firewall on DHCP lease", but if I have that checked or not doesn't make a difference. So, what can I do to fix this? Its kinda annoying to have to do this whenever I have to connect to the internet. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Windows 7 is blocking ports

  - by Caleb1994

  I am trying to open port 80 and 3690 for HTTP and svnserve respectively. I have Windows Firewall off, and have tried temporarily disabling Mcafee VirusScan Enterprise, to no avail. According to http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/, both ports 80 and 3690 are still blocked. I can't think of what would be blocking them if Windows Firewall and my antivirus are disabled. Here is the output of netsh firewall show state Firewall status: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Profile = Standard Operational mode = Disable Exception mode = Enable Multicast/broadcast response mode = Enable Notification mode = Enable Group policy version = Windows Firewall Remote admin mode = Disable Ports currently open on all network interfaces: Port Protocol Version Program ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3690 TCP Any (null) 22 TCP Any (null) 80 TCP Any (null) 1900 UDP Any (null) 2869 TCP Any (null) Any help? I'm not sure what each item on the list of enabled/disabled items is, but "Operational Mode" is disabled, so I assume that one refers to me disabling Windows Firewall. I know that since Windows Firewall is off, this output might not be useful, but I figured I'd include it just in case, haha.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 is blocking ports

  - by Caleb1994

  I am trying to open port 80 and 3690 for HTTP and svnserve respectively. I have Windows Firewall off, and have tried temporarily disabling Mcafee VirusScan Enterprise, to no avail. According to http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/, both ports 80 and 3690 are still blocked. I can't think of what would be blocking them if Windows Firewall and my antivirus are disabled. Here is the output of netsh firewall show state Firewall status: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Profile = Standard Operational mode = Disable Exception mode = Enable Multicast/broadcast response mode = Enable Notification mode = Enable Group policy version = Windows Firewall Remote admin mode = Disable Ports currently open on all network interfaces: Port Protocol Version Program ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3690 TCP Any (null) 22 TCP Any (null) 80 TCP Any (null) 1900 UDP Any (null) 2869 TCP Any (null) Any help? I'm not sure what each item on the list of enabled/disabled items is, but "Operational Mode" is disabled, so I assume that one refers to me disabling Windows Firewall. I know that since Windows Firewall is off, this output might not be useful, but I figured I'd include it just in case, haha.

  Read the article

• MSSQL 2008 is claiming the firewall is blocking ports even from local machine

  - by Mercurybullet

  I was just hoping to step through a couple queries to see how the temp tables are interacting and I'm getting this message. The windows firewall on this machine is currently blocking remote debugging. Remote debugging requires that the debugging be allowed to receive information from the network.Remote debugging also requires DCOM (TCP port 135) and IPSEC (UDP 4500/UDP500) be unblocked Even when I walked over to the actual machine and tried running the debugger, I'm still getting the same message. Am I missing something or does the debugger try to run remotely even from the local machine? Since this was meant to be just a quick check, I don't need instructions on how to open up the firewall, just hoping there is a way to run the debugger locally instead.

  Read the article

• ipfw is blocking access to a script

  - by user225551

  I need to figure out how to troubleshoot why ipfw is blocking my script. This script parses out some rss feeds over the net. I have about 10 different feed urls. About 5 or 6 of these urls are returning xml, the others are timing out. If I turn the firewall off, they will all work. The issue I'm having is that I have no idea what port I need to open for the urls that are timing out. Is there a command that will show me this?

  Read the article

• Preventing Email Spoofing

  - by DT

  I use Google Apps with my domain. Recently, we have begun to receive spam that gets past Google's spam filters. They are from our own email addresses. I am wondering how to prevent this kind of email spoofing. We use an SPF record with the "~all" setting. I'm wondering if I can upgrade that to "-all". However, Google Apps recommends against it. Also, I'm not 100% sure that our SPF record is complete. Any suggestions? Thank you ever so much.

  Read the article

• Exchange 2010 forwarded emails by external servers being blocked

  - by MadBoy

  Our users were getting spam messages from their own accounts (same domain/login for example [email protected] to [email protected]). This is preety standard trick and I decided to block it so that anonymous users can't send emails as @company.com. This brought some problems on us like our printers not being able to send emails etc but I solved it with secondary smtp receiver on different port with ip restrictions. However it seems to affect forwarding by some e-mail servers as well: Hi. This is the qmail-send program at home.pl. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : 89.14.1.26 failed after I sent the message. Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 Client does not have permissions to send as this sender --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Return-Path: Received: from mail.company.com [89.14.1.26] (HELO mail.company.com) by company.ho.pl [79.93.31.43] with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer v0.70) id 488fcb01c2f069d9; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:46:55 +0100 Received: from EXCHANGE1.COMPANY ([fe80::d425:135f:b655:1223]) by EXCHANGE2.COMPANY ([fe80::193f:51ac:9316:cb27%14]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:46:55 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?MadBoy?= So basically server forwards it without affecting email address it was send with and our servers treat it like spam. I used this command to block things: Get-ReceiveConnector "DEFAULT Exchange2" | Get-ADPermission -user "NT AUTHORITY\Anonymous Logon" | where {$_.ExtendedRights -like "ms-exch-smtp-accept-authoritative-domain-sender"} | Remove-ADPermission Is there anyway I can keep on receiveing things like forwards but be able to block things (except some dedicated antispam solution - this will be added later). Also how do I "reassing" back the permissions that was removed? EDIT to clarify: I have a domain domain.com configured as Authorative. Couple of our users are on project for differentcompany.com which is not on our servers or anywhere close. Now when they send an email from their accounts lets say [email protected] to [email protected] that special alias is configured so that any email it receives it forwards to multiple people including a group alias at our domain [email protected] and that group alias puts the email in users mailboxes. After the email is forwarded by [email protected] and it reaches our server it is denied because the forwarding done by the "external" server doesn't affect user information so for the server it seems like the [email protected] was actually sender and it treats it as spam and denies it. The server at differentcompany.com just adds itself to the header that it passed thru it and doesn't modify sender at anyway (seems like this is how forwarding works). Although I could probably allow this particular server as allowed to relay but this would seem to affect more servers/users as anyone can setup forwarding on their email back to our domain...

  Read the article

• Forwarding Emails From Inbox Only

  - by ircmaxell

  I have a forward setup on one of our public facing email addresses to a few users outside of our system (to an external address). Seeing as it's public (printed on a website in plain text), we get TONS of spam on that account. We're being marked as a SPAM source due to the forwarding by the external system. We have pretty aggressive IMF (Intelligent Message Filtering) setup, and it works great for internal messages. The problem we're facing is that Exchange is forwarding ALL the email received on that account, and not just the messages that pass the IMF (and don't get pushed into Junk). As far as I can tell, there's no way to adjust the IMF settings for that one account. And as far as I can tell, there's no way to setup folder forwarding (inbox - external address) from Exchange. Is there something I'm missing or is there any way around these issues that I may be missing? Thanks...

  Read the article

• Thunderbird: filters don't match links

  - by Gregory MOUSSAT

  I use filters to remove some undesirable messages (in addition to the intergrated spam filter). This is great to avoid tons of boring people who want to sell me tons of boring stuff. My problem is, since years (so with every Thunderbird release I ever had, even the current one which is up to date) it is unable to filter links. For example I want to delete every messages containing a link to http://xxxxx.emv3.com/xxxxxx I never managed to remove those emails. I use a filter on the body, checking if it contains emv3 but this never match. Those emails are in HTML format, and the links are displayed as a text like "Visit our website" or so. If I write a HTML email with a link, my filter works. When this is a spam, this never works. When I save the email to a text file, I open it with notepad and I see several http://xxxxx.emv3.com/xxxx Any idea why this don't work ? And how can I do ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >