IMON problems

Hi,

i have NOD32 and the spamfilter K9 on a second PC. K9 is working as a mail proxy and delivers the mail from the mailbox to the mail reader.
I have configured K9 to port 110 and K9 is working very well.

The problem is that IMON is not scanning any mail. From my understanding, K9 gets the mail with POP3 (port 110) from my mail boxes. Therefore, IMON should scan all these mails because port 110 is used. Is this right?

So why is not one mail scanned?
ESET support told me to use the latest beta (2.00.10) but this does not help.

An older version of IMON (the one in the german trial) works with my configuration and scans all mails. So there must be a significant change.

Regards,

Arnd

 

I should have written that i changed K9 to use port 110. So my mail client is talking on port 110 K9. I have to do this because my mail client can't use another port.

Any other ideas?

 

Ronjon,

thanks for your suggestion.
My mail program is David 6.6, but thats not the point.

The port 9999 is the default for K9. And to use port 9999, the mail program must be configured to talk to port 9999 (what is not true in my case).
I think the reason for K9 to use another port than 110 as default is to minimize the risk of an interference with another program. But if there is no other program that uses port 110 (as in my case) its no problem to change the configuration.

Arnd

 

You may be out of luck if your e-mail program can't change its port from 110, because there is interference between NOD32 and any e-mail proxy which tries to use port 110. I use Spamihilator (also an email proxy) as my antispam program. I have never been able to get K-9 to work with my e-mail program, Pocomail (BTW a really great e-mail program) and NOD32. When I first tried to use Spamihilator with NOD32 I used Spamihilator's default setting of using port 110, and I couldn't retrieve my e-mail. I can't remember exactly where I saw this, but I read that e-mail proxy programs and some antivirus programs which scan e-mail cannot share the same port (I believe the reason given is that the antivirus program also works as a proxy). The suggested solution was to change the proxy's port away from 110 and match the e-mail programs default port to whatever port the proxy was set for. Borrowing a leaf from K-9, I set Spamihilator's port to 9999 and my e-mail program's port to 9999 and voila, everything worked perfectly. Spamihilator culled my e-mail, I was able to retrieve it, and each piece had the scanned by NOD32 legend on the bottom.

Are you absolutely sure you can't change David 6.6's port setting from 110? Each of the three e-mail programs I have used, Pocomail, Courier (formerly Calypso) and Outlook Express allow the port to be changed. Sometimes, how to do this is not readily apparent. For example, while the latter two programs have specific boxes to change the port, Pocomail does not. To change the port in Pocomail I had to change the name of the incoming mail server on my e-mail account (in Pocomail) from "localhost" (that's the name Spamihilator requires) to "localhost:9999". That did the trick.

Hope this helps.

 

Hi profhsg,

first of all, i'm absolute sure that David is not able to use another port than 110.
Second, i also thought that the problem could be that both programs use the port 110. But why does it work with the trial?

Arnd

 

Actually there may be a reason it works with the trial and not with the either the current final or beta versions. I was successfully using NOD32, Spamihilator and my e-mail program before I made the changes described in my earlier post. However, after an update to the components of my NOD32, I was not able to do so and had to make the changes I described earlier.

As I said earlier, some antivirus programs (PC-Cillan is another one I know of) cannot share port 110 with an e-mail proxy program. NOD32, since its latest update may, unfortunately, be one of them.

 

Hello,
Is this new beta available for the public?
Look bold phrase.
Thanks.

 

I'm having some issues with .9 as well, is there a download location for the beta version?

 

This is not NOD trouble - it is K9 problem...

New IMON (.10) can't solve this - it is HTTP scanner - it scans HTTP transfers - so it don't scan other transfers (like FTP, HTTPS and some odd K9 POP3 connections).

Read that my thread about K9 (this is third thread about this) - simple add port 9999 to IMON POP scaned port

 

@Digi:

I getting tired to repeat it.
Port 9999 is the default port for K9 and you have to configure the mail program to talk port 9999 with K9. If it's not possible (as in my case) to use another port than 110 with the mail program, then K9 can be configured to use another port (like 110). Adding port 9999 to NOD does nothing if there is no program that uses port 9999!

And second (and nobody answered this so far):
WHY DOES THE TRIAL WORK?

Arnd

 

NOD32Control Center -> IMON -> Preferences -> Use POP scanner for ports:

there is only "110" so add ",9999" and NOD WILL scan emails passing FROM K9 to your email client. This works for all IMON versions since 2.000.6 version (one year back?)

In default config IMON will scans ONLY port 110 - you must tell him to scan other ports...

 

@Digi

Why should i tell NOD32 configure to scan port 9999 when K9 IS NOT USING port 9999! I configured my K9 to use port 110, not 9999 any more.

Arnd

 

Direct from the Expert Guide :

"Change the POP3 server port to 9999"

And for the millionth time: I can't change the port to 9999, so i have to use port 110.
And yes, K9 supports different ports, so 110.

Man, i get bored of this "tip"...

 

Since Robin Keir also uses NOD, you might also ask in his k9 support forum since your email client apparently is limited to using port 110 and that appears to result in problems with NOD scanning email with K9. I just throw that out there as another option since I can't help with your problem.

 

Hi folks, we managed to replicate the problem and will try to sort it out soon. Please bear in mind that it's not possible to use NOD32 as a server solution without Eset's approval, otherwise it would be considered as bleaching the license terms.

 

'bleaching" ? That is too funny!
(I know it is just a typo but a very hilarious one)!