Pete,
There appears to be a problem with rule 1984485 this morning. I'm getting a
number of FP hits on it from AOL users.
Darin.
I also have hit this. A single hit, also from AOL.
Andrew.
From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Darin Cox
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 6:37 AM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer] Problem with Sniffer-Porn rule
Any word on this?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:37 AM
Subject: [sniffer] Problem with Sniffer-Porn rule this morning
Pete,
There appears to be a problem with rule 1984485 this morning. I'm getting a
number
I've just used proper channels and submitted the message and the snippet
from the MessageSniffer log to the false@ email address.
I've also added this:
rule id='1984485'/
to the
rule-panics
section of the snf_engine.xml file on each of my servers.
Andrew.
We had 18 hits on it from ~6:40-9:30am EDT before putting in the rule panic, 5
of which reached our hold weight. We've had 27 more hits since adding the rule
panic.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Colbeck, Andrew
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:30 AM
Hello Darin,
Friday, July 18, 2008, 9:37:18 AM, you wrote:
Pete,
There appears to be a problem with rule 1984485 this morning. I'm getting a number of FP hits on it from AOL users.
The rule has been pulled already.
_M
--
Pete McNeil
Chief Scientist,
Arm Research Labs, LLC.
Hello Darin,
Friday, July 18, 2008, 11:39:47 AM, you wrote:
We had 18 hits on it from ~6:40-9:30am EDT before putting in the rule panic, 5 of which reached our hold weight. We've had 27 more hits since adding the rule panic.
When a rule panic is in place the rule should be inert.
Yes. The rule is inert. However, according to the logs the rule would have
been hit 27 more times had we not added the rule panic.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:16 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: Problem with
Hmmm... I don't think the rule was already pulled. We update our rulebase upon
receipt of the notification of a new rulebase being available, and according to
our logs the rule was in until at least 11:24am EDT.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil
To: Message Sniffer
Hello Darin,
Friday, July 18, 2008, 1:07:56 PM, you wrote:
Yes. The rule is inert. However, according to the logs the rule would have been hit 27 more times had we not added the rule panic.
Thanks for clarifying. If it were something else I'd want to get on that right away ;-)
_M
Hello Darin,
Friday, July 18, 2008, 1:12:39 PM, you wrote:
Hmmm... I don't think the rule was already pulled. We update our rulebase upon receipt of the notification of a new rulebase being available, and according to our logs the rule was in until at least 11:24am EDT.
The rule
Hi,
Well I did it, upgraded to 3.0 as well. The automatic rule panic feature and
all the other stuff seemed a good idea. :-)
Setting it up turned out to be straight forward, just follow the instructions.
Ran into just 2 things and one question.
1)
Forgot to set correct path to identity file,
Hello Bonno,
Friday, July 18, 2008, 2:27:59 PM, you wrote:
Hi,
Well I did it, upgraded to 3.0 as well. The automatic rule panic feature and all the other stuff seemed a good idea. :-)
Setting it up turned out to be straight forward, just follow the instructions. Ran into just 2 things
13 matches
Mail list logo
