FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Welcome to the Sophos User Bulletin Board. If this is yo

Products SECURITY GATEWAY hardware appliances, software appliance Virtual housefull Appliance GATEWAY EXTENSIONS RED Access Points Clients Smart Installer MANAGEMENT housefull TOOLS Command Center HOSTED SERVICES Mail Archiving Solutions Network Security Web Security Email Security housefull Web Application Security Branch Office Security Wireless Security housefull Central Management Mail Archiving Resources Mobile Apps Awards & Certifications Customers Success Stories Datasheets Webinars White Papers & EBooks two minutes Explainers live demos Gateway Builder Free Trial Security Gateway Free Trial Mail Archiving Verticals housefull Construction Education Financial Institutions housefull Government Health Care Hospitality Law Firms Retail Partners Partner Program Become a Partner Locate a Partner Partner Portal Support Getting Started Documentation Downloads User Forum Training Videos Feature Requests Support Programs Hotline News & Events Blog Media Coverage Events Press Corner housefull Communities Newsletter Company Company Profile housefull Management Team Worldwide Offices Career Sponsorships housefull Contact Astaro
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Welcome to the Sophos User Bulletin Board. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. Methods You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum did you want to visit from the selection below.
Hi, I am running on mail delivery from the internal mail server (David) about the ASG. Works well, but mails are answered about the a user autoreply function are classified as spam because: Envelope-from: <> The From field is correct, however, filled with the sender address. Can I DAFR define an exception or do I have to complete Antispamprfung fr disable the internal mail server? Gru Martin
__________________ Admin of UTM: 2x UTM 120 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM 220 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM 425 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM @ HL HW 425 V9.xx 3x VMware UTM V9.xx HL 2x VMware SUM V4.xx Full RED 1x 3x AP10 Sophos Eng. Cert.
Good question, where does one define such global matters? Well, one can define exception lists for return addresses, but just go to the FROM and not the envelope. And an exception for <> is not accepted. An exception for messages with specific subjects (AUTO REPLY: something) wre helpful, but is not provided. I treasures I'll housefull have to disable Gru Martin
__________________ Admin of UTM: 2x UTM 120 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM 220 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM 425 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM @ HL HW 425 V9.xx 3x VMware UTM V9.xx HL 2x VMware SUM V4.xx Full RED 1x 3x AP10 Sophos Eng. Cert.
02-10-2013, 12:16 PM
The whole anti-spam department of the ASG is diplomatically ausgedrckt more for home users thought. After about months, we had about 10% false positives, housefull the part has been deactivated. That may be so, but we pay DAFR. Therefore, it should here be no developmental arrest ;-) In my opinion, rather too little is discarded and for familiar housefull companies I care like an exception list. Gru Martin Sent from my iPhone using Astaro.org
Quote: ID22566 9.001 Out of Office emails housefull are marked as spam -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Description: Out of Office emails housefull can be falsely marked as spam Workaround: There is currently no workaround Fixed in: And if 10% is incorrectly identified housefull as SPAM, tests which makes Pr because of SPAM filters? Possibly. Adjust once, because that is clearly too much! Nice greetings
__________________ Admin of UTM: 2x UTM 120 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM 220 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM 425 rev. 5 V9.xx 1x UTM @ HL HW 425 V9.xx 3x VMware UTM V9.xx HL 2x VMware SUM V4.xx Full RED 1x 3x AP10 Sophos Eng. Cert.
The whole anti-spam department of the ASG is diplomatically ausgedrckt more for home users thought. After about months, we had about 10% false positives, the part has been deactivated. hi ipzipzap Since my go diesbezglichen experiences with your far apart. Antispam part is one of the Sahnestcke in the UTM ... your obviously bad experiences lay with me following close guesses a) your Utm empfngt the mails via SMTP directly from the Internet (mx entry on UTM address), or you have tions other spooler in front of you on the internet b) You had mglicherweise some of the effective features such as SPF, BATV, RDNS / HELO checks disabled (since usually a handful of exceptions are necessary to ensure that no more falses occur) c) You do not have RDNS check operated in "strict" mode, which can lead to many errors RDNS. If you want to start again as an attempt like me can send PM and I will look like over the Config ... The Commtouch story was supposed to be corrected with the last or next Releses. But with well-tuned filters, the CT fishes in hindsight