Sorry for all these tests -- but a new copy of Declude Interceptor seems to
want to completely lose messages from lists.
Rob
#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
To
Please ignore this test.#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
Pong
John T
eServices For You
Seek, and ye shall find!
-Original Message-
From: sniffer@sortmonster.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:12 PM
To: sniffer@sortmonster.com
Subject: Test
Hello sniffer,
Just testing.
--
pong...
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello sniffer,
Just testing.
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and
(un)subscription instructions go to
http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
Message received...
Sharon
Portage College
|-+--
| | Pete McNeil|
| | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | search.com|
| | Sent by: |
| | [EMAIL
Apologies, but need to test.
Robert
Ping?
Pong.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
MathiasSent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 3:59 PMTo:
sniffer@SortMonster.comSubject: [sniffer] Test
Apologies, but need
to test.
Robert
triggered.
Andrew
8)
-Original Message-From: Bonno Bloksma
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:26
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [sniffer] test
sender
Hi,
Is there a test sender where I can have the
program send us a test mail that should fail
On Friday, December 3, 2004, 8:53:26 AM, Joe wrote:
JW OK, I'm confused. First I admit I don't spend much time on Sniffer or
JW Declude settings, and I haven't learned the programs very well.
JW I used the default Sniffer config files. If I changed as indicated below
JW will it catch more
Hello Sniffer Folks,
During a previous discussion in late September, it was generally
agreed that it was time to re-order the priority of the experimental
and generalized rule groups.
I am going to begin that work today.
The new ordering will be:
63: Experimental Received [IP]
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 4:15:43 PM, Jim wrote:
JM Pete,
JM We have rules setup in declude based upon sniffer return codes 60 and 62 to
JM mark all messages with those tests as spam, however we do not have any 61 or
JM 62 return codes setup. Can you briefly explain what each of these
]: [sniffer] Test ordering/precedence
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, 4:15:43 PM, Jim wrote:
JM Pete,
JM We have rules setup in declude based upon sniffer return codes 60 and
62 to
JM mark all messages with those tests as spam, however we do not have any
61 or
JM 62 return codes setup. Can you
On Saturday, September 18, 2004, 11:22:02 PM, Matt wrote:
M Thanks Pete, but let me just stress the largest issue that I see and I
M think you already are aware of it. The new IP classification is the
M most likely to produce false positives and it's result code of 60 places
M precedence of that
-Original Message-
From: Pete McNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've actually been thinking very strongly of reorganizing the rule group IDs
recently. Especially in light of the new changes we've made with robots et
al. The accuracy of the Experimental IP group has gone up considerably -
Pete,
Given some of the recent changes in the result codes for Sniffer, I
thought I would inquire about the precedence of the result codes and
how these can affect systems.
On my system I have weighted the result codes differently and overall,
I would consider the following order to be
.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sniffer] Test
ordering/precedence
Pete,
Given some
, 2004 5:28
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sniffer]
Test
ordering/precedence
Pete,
Given some of the recent changes in the result codes for Sniffer, I
thought I
would inquire about the precedence of the result codes and how these
can affect
systems.
On my system I have weighted
On Saturday, September 18, 2004, 9:07:55 PM, Matt wrote:
M John,
M If you read this more carefully, I was not suggesting that
M action betaken that would affect everyone's system in such a way
M that it wouldrequire modifications. The 60 result code was
M recently changed fromGray rules to IP
Thanks Pete, but let me just stress the largest issue that I see and I
think you already are aware of it. The new IP classification is the
most likely to produce false positives and it's result code of 60 places
precedence of that over General, Experimental and Obfuscation hits.
There is a
to 1:
12:24:17 (78.89 KB/s) - `sniffer2.new.gz' saved [1983539/1983539]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 8:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
mod_gzip is now configured on our web
At 02:49 PM 5/4/2004, Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 4, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Pete McNeil wrote:
Every rulebase is potentially a different size composition, plus sizes
typically change with each update. I'm glad to hear all the positive
reports on this. :-)
Forgive me... What is the URL for the zipped
At 04:17 PM 5/4/2004, you wrote:
At 02:49 PM 5/4/2004, Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 4, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Pete McNeil wrote:
Every rulebase is potentially a different size composition, plus sizes
typically change with each update. I'm glad to hear all the positive
reports on this. :-)
Forgive me...
Tech Support
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
At 04:17 PM 5/4/2004, you wrote:
At 02:49 PM 5/4/2004, Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 4, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Pete McNeil wrote
of this
problem?
Eddie Arrants
Cape Lookout Internet Services
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:46 PM
To: Richard Farris; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
This may have been aswered
This can be done with wget, for example, but setting this up appears to be
technically complex - so I'm going to leave it at that for now. (Requires
the --header switch and piping the output through gzip)
It is not so complex:
In the wget command change
-O sniffer.new
to
-O sniffer.new.gz
At 07:13 AM 5/1/2004, you wrote:
This can be done with wget, for example, but setting this up appears to be
technically complex - so I'm going to leave it at that for now. (Requires
the --header switch and piping the output through gzip)
It is not so complex:
In the wget command change
-O
Appears to work beautifully.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
At 07:13 AM 5/1/2004, you wrote:
This can be done with wget, for example
Didn't happen this time, nevermind!
Frederic TaraseviciusInternet Information Services, Inc.http://www.i-is.com/810-794-4400mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Fred
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:42
PM
Subject: [sniffer] Test
:42 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Test
I'm seeing header corruption today on this group, just a test message..
Frederic Tarasevicius
Internet Information Services, Inc.
http://www.i-is.com/
810-794-4400
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
29 matches
Mail list logo
