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
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
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 -
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
