Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,236

    Default

    This thread is based on a client that had Untangle v9 issues and made a clean jump to v11. They had DNS issues, I fixed them. I had several weeks of 9.x running without DNS issues, then jumped to v11 and like magic, spam is gone.

    This is also operating on a trial of the new spam engine, I haven't a clue how well the free one would have fared yet. The customer is annoyingly enough going to provide the surface for this test. They don't want to pay for the subscription. So in 13 days when Spam Blocker expires, I'll have to fall back to the Lite module. At that time we're going to find out the hard way if it continues working or not. If it does they'll stick to free, if it doesn't they'll fork over for the subscription.

    Personally, I'm torn. I want Spam Blocker Lite to be a solid module, but I'd also like this company that's been benefiting from Untangle for four years now actually paying for the service.

    At this point if you're struggling with spam, I'm highly recommending an upgrade to v11. I do not suggest upgrading from v10 to v11, I suggest a full reinstall. That way the Spam Blocker starts from scratch, no bayes corruption or past issues can come along for the ride.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  2. #12
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Oh... maybe I misunderstood your earlier post. When you said:
    Well something changed, because last night it was a glorious slaughter of junk mail, the previous night was good, but rather ho hum. I didn't do anything to the unit other than dump in the trial. Unless the new Bitdefender engine is that much more?
    I thought you were indicating that the spam issues had returned. Perhaps I should blow away this v10 box and just install v11. <shrug>

  3. #13
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,236

    Default

    Yeah I was trying to say precisely the opposite. Night 1, was about as effective as I'm used to, no Bayes scoring, no premium module. Night two was still no Bayes scoring, but premium module with a glorious slaughter of spam.

    And, night three? From what I can see even LESS mail is passing. The spam complaints have dropped significantly. Bayes is active now.

    Thus far, Spam Blocker v11 is back to magic bullet status. I'm excited to get the upgrade on my NFR unit here to see how it impacts my long standing, and documented spam issues.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  4. #14
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Well, something is awry on my v10 system. I received a typical spam (Insurance) that produced the following in UT:
    HTML Code:
    Message-ID: <1596280814210173a4b5e89595240a2581f24bd2128e4d9d15962808@mode1.qrson.net>
    X-spam-status: No, score=2.7 required=4.3 tests=T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,URI_OPTOUT_3LD,BAYES_50,LOTS_OF_MONEY
    Within 1 minute, I ran the same message through SA in the UT console and got:
    HTML Code:
    Message-Id: <1596280814210173a4b5e89595240a2581f24bd2128e4d9d15962808@mode1.qrson.net>
    X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on untangle
    X-Spam-Flag: YES
    X-Spam-Level: **************
    X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=14.2 required=5.0 tests=CTASD_SPAM_CONFIRMED,
    	HTML_MESSAGE,LOTS_OF_MONEY,RDNS_NONE,URI_OPTOUT_3LD,XPRIO autolearn=spam
    	version=3.3.1
    X-Spam-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020207.54395A8D.002C,ss=4,sh,re=0.000,recu=0.000,
    	reip=0.000,cl=4,cld=1,fgs=8

  5. #15
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,236

    Default

    That smells like inconsistent DNS to me... Or slow DNS.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  6. #16
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Agreed. I've tried multiple cox DNS servers and most recently my own on one of my Windows servers. Haven't tried running one under nix.

  7. #17
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,236

    Default

    Ugh I'm sorry man the Cox ISP DNS is terrible. Your own internal server should be fine, assuming it's using root hints and not forwarding to COX or someone else. My debian based DNS cache was much faster than, and lighter than the Windows one. But it also took a ton more time to configure, and I already have need of the Windows system. That would have been my preferred choice, but my hypervisor here just doesn't have the drive IO to do the job. My VPS that fuels Nexgen's PBX has a DNS cache on it now, it works great! Firewalled off of course.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  8. #18
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Agreed.... Cox DNS sucks. My Windows DNS is running fine, but UT sometimes complains about slow resolving or web filter categories not resolving. I have a Ubuntu server running Samba. I could try installing DNSMasq there I guess.

  9. #19
    Untangle Ninja sky-knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    26,236

    Default

    I wouldn't bother with DNSMasq, a caching bind server for an Ubuntu box is as simple as apt-get install bind9.
    Rob Sandling, BS:SWE, MCP
    NexgenAppliances.com
    Phone: 866-794-8879 x201
    Email: support@nexgenappliances.com

  10. #20
    Master Untangler
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Thanks for the input. I've got the service up and running, and I've reconfigured the UT to use the new DNS server. UT still initially complained about slow query speeds, but I'll monitor it for a few days.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2