If the test fails, but the message does not hit the hold or delete weight.
Not a perfect measurement, as it does not capture all ham (ham that hits the
hold or delete weight), and misses some spam (spam that does not hit the
hold or delete weight), but it is the most accurate and least subjective
What do the logs say? What's the average time to process a message?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Farris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: [sniffer] Sniffer Resources
When I turn off sniffer my server acts
We just reported one to Sniffer support for analysis as well.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Heimir Eidskrem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:34 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Damn viagra spam
We are getting tons of spam for viagra and
Yeah, and whoever is on this list from Poynerlaw.com needs to stop
postmaster replies for messages failing their spam tests. I got a nice
little automated reply from them when I replied to Hiemir's message.
Since most spam and virus content is forging these days, postmaster replies
just add to
Deleting on any one test is not a good idea. However, we do hold on some
single tests, and review for false positives. Our hold weight is 100 and
delete is 300. We rarely see a false positive above 200 though.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Timothy C. Bohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
That's only in Virus Pro, right? I don't think BANZIPEXTS is available in
Standard or Lite.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: John T (Lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:01 AM
Subject: RE: [sniffer] New virus...
No need to block
Another possible variant overnight at 4:30AM
ET. Same routing as the new Sober variant from yesterday, but different
attachment: screen_photo.zip
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox
To: Declude.Virus@declude.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:33 PM
Subject
I believe Pete is moving to a POP account approach. You would set up a POP
account for spam and another for false positives, and send them the login
info to it. Then have your users forward messages to the POP accounts as
attachments (that's the hardest part, which is why we still have them sent
Hi Pete,
Do you send out notices to licensees to let them know to renew ahead of
time?
I think we're getting close to renewal, and want to make sure we don't
lapse.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rick Hogue sniffer@SortMonster.com
Cc: [EMAIL
Title: Message
Yep... send them to spam (at), from the email that
you have on record with them. Sending as an attachment so they get
complete headers is usually best, but they can also work with just the body of
the message.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Gary
Schick
To:
Hi Pete,
What's going on over there? We had somewhere
between 5 and 10 times the usual number of Sniffer false positives this
morning. They are across the board, so it's not just one rule that's
catching them, or a particular set of senders or receivers.
Hopefully you can get it under
SteinComputer House
www.computerhouse.com
- Original Message -
From:
Darin Cox
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:45
AM
Subject: [sniffer] Rash of false
positives
Hi Pete,
What's going on over there? We had
somewhere between 5
an old rule base from
several days again ? If so, try that to see if it temporarily resolves the false
positives.
-Original
Message-From: "Darin Cox" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: sniffer@SortMonster.comDate:
Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:45:39 -0500Subject: [sniffer] Rash of false
positives
developed a feeling that Message Sniffer has become too tight.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Rash of false positives
We're seeing a continual stream of false positives. It's
we
can avoid it in the future.
Thanks,
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: [sniffer] Rash of false positives
Hi Pete,
What's going on over there? We had somewhere
between 5 and 10 times the usual
of mailIf things don't get back to normal I will be
back..
Richard
FarrisEthixs Online1.270.247. Office1.800.548.3877 Tech
Support"Crossroads to a Cleaner Internet"
-
Original Message -
From: Pete
McNeil
To: Darin
Cox
Sent: Tuesday, Nove
Hi Michael,
How about false positive processing? That's our biggest headache, but it
would be drastically reduced by faster processing than the 3-5 days we
currently see.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Cc: Pete McNeil
Wow... last minute notice. It's difficult to budgets for these things with
so little notice. Please consider a couple month's notice the next time.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:42 PM
McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:08 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Last chance to renew at the old price!
Part of the purpose for additional staff is to reach a goal of FP
processing measured in minutes to hours, never days
Agreed. We counted 100 false positives yesterday, compared to our normal
rate of less than 5.
No false positives since 6pm ET yesterday, though. Thank goodness.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Frederick Samarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have an idea. These problems seem to stem
mostly from changes in the methods of handling rulebase updates.
We were lucky enough not to be affected with the
latest rule issue, but the previous one made for a very long day
andsomedisgruntled customers.
Would it be feasible to announce in
that, and unfreeze once it was clear
that no glut of false positives would result.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] problems
On Wednesday, February 8
.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [sniffer] problems
On Wednesday, February 8, 2006, 11:26:46 AM, Darin wrote:
DC There was no error in my comment. I
On average it takes 2 or three days to hear back on false positives.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Andy Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: [sniffer] False Positive - no reaction?
Hi,
I filed this false positive
That queue concept would be wonderful! Hopefully it would have some simple
info extracted to show recipient, sender, subject, header info, and info on
the rule(s) it failed. One of my ongoing challenges is matching responses
to reports and following up to see what additional actions are
Pete,
Thanks for the quicker turnaround in the last few
days for false positive processing. We're seeing abouthalf day
now.
Much appreciated!
Darin.
We just reviewed this morning's logs and had a few false positives. Not
sure if these are due to the new rulebot, but it's more than we've had for
the entire day for the past month.
Rules
--
873261
866398
856734
284831
865663
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Jay Sudowski -
Thanks, Pete.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] New Rulebot F001
On Monday, March 6, 2006, 3:42:50 PM, Darin wrote:
DC We just reviewed this morning's
Good job, Pete. Through these changes we saw a minimal increase in false
positives on one day, and detection seems to have improved as well.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:08 AM
Subject:
Totally agree. I'd like to see some separation between rules created by
newer rulebots and preexisting rules. That way if there becomes an issue
with a bot, we can turn off one group quickly and easily.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] New RuleBot F002 Online
On Friday, March 10, 2006, 3:41:00 PM, Darin wrote:
DC Totally agree. I'd like to see some separation between rules created by
DC newer rulebots
-
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Darin Cox sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] False positive processing
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 9:38:46 AM, Darin wrote:
DC
DC
DC Hi Pete,
DC
DC
DC
DC Are you getting behind on false positive processing
They do, but you have to both specify that email
for your domains only comes from your mail servers AND use a test in your spam
filtering that checks SPF and pushes fails over your hold limit.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Computer
House Support
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sspfpassx-10
Our SPF Record looks like this:
computerhouse.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 mx
mx:mail.computerhouse.com"mail.computerhouse.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a
-all"
Your insight is appreciated.
Michael SteinComputer House
- Original Message -
From:
Darin Cox
To: Messag
The one issue with this I have is
1) Forward full
original source to Sniffer with license code.
If we could do it without the license code, it
would be much easier to automate on our end. I already have a process in
place to copy and reroute false positives by rewriting the Q file. I'm
Hi Pete,
Can I interpret this as email address and matching source IP are sufficient
if the correct email address is used to submit?
If not, do you have any suggestions on how you would like to see us
inserting the license ID in the D file?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete
Oh, I assumed the rule had been removed. Are
you saying there was a rule in place, but the FP processing somehow failed to
find it? If so, I'd say that is a major failing on the part of the FP
processing.
There's no way thatwe can find time to go
through the Sniffer logs after this bounces
Awesome. Great job, Pete.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: [sniffer]Re[2]: [sniffer]Re[2]: [sniffer]Re[2]: [sniffer]FP
suggestions
Hello Matt,
Unfortunately, by the time the message gets to us it is sometimes just
different enough that the original pattern cannot be found. There are
some folks who consistently have success, and some who occasionally
have problems, and a few who always have a problem.
Different in what way? Is the mail
Of course I'm sending the full message as an
attachment. You can do that with Outlook byattaching and item, then
browsing your mail folders for the message to attach. And yes, that's how
you do it with Outlook Express as well. I don't use Thunderbird or
Netscape mail, but I would assume you
Thunderbird and Netscape just takes the full original source and
attaches it as a message/rfc822 attachment. I forwarded this message
back to the list by just pressing Forward.
Interesting that they include the headers with a simple forward, without
specifying forward as attachment. I haven't
We zip ours nightly and save for 30 days just to make sure we don't miss
anything in reviewing the hold queue. In practice, a week may be enough,
but two is probably preferable.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Phillip Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Message Sniffer Community
Great job, Pete! And thanks for all of your efforts to simultaneously
increase the catch rate and decrease the FP rate.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject:
FYI... I just reported one of these, so watch
out.
Darin.
Hi Pete,
I'm not sure which column is which, but here are the log lines for the
message (minus the authorization code)
20060823163449 D83a20d3001502962.SMD 0 32 Match 1100444 60 1502
1551 98
20060823163449 D83a20d3001502962.SMD 0 32 Final 1100444 60 0 3798
98
The FP was
Anyone else seeing a sudden increase in FPs?
We normally report a few each day, but we're seeing a 10x increase in FPs for
the past three days.
Darin.
We see this occasionallywith Declude
1.82. What version are you running?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Herb Guenther
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: Significant increase in false
positives
Hi Darin;Not seeing a lot
Ping them on the Declude list for the lack of
response, and CC David Barker for a response. He seem tobe the best
means ot getting results these days.
What version are you running? Understandably
you'll only get a response if you're running the latest 3.x or 4.x, as older
versions are no
Ahh... good. The first thing they'll probably
tell you is to update to the latest 4.x version, see if the problem persists,
then re-report it.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Herb Guenther
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: [sniffer]
For us, it doesn't calculate the proper weight when
this happens, and only acts on the weight seen in the topmost headers. One
of these years I'll finally exercise the right to use our 4.x license, I just
don't have time for new problems at this point.
Darin.
- Original Message -
Hi Pete,
I haven't looked at the Sniffer logs, as cross
referencing from the Declude logs is a bit of a pain, but many of the FPs did
have images, so that probably accounts for most of them if it was an
Experimental rule.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil
To: Message
Hi Matt,
I know Pete has requested this in the past, but
Declude hasn't been willing to make the change necessary for this to make it in
the headers. But I totally agree with you, I'd love to see this in the
headers so tracking down the rule isn't such a pain.
Darin.
- Original
Hi Pete,
Can you clarify what this .xhdr option is and how
we can enable it? I don't remember anything inthe
documentationthat describes it. I think there were references to the
config file previously, but there was never anything about it in mine. If
you could give an example of how to
Hi Pete,
You're exactly right, but we often get spoiled by
the high quality of your detection rate. It's easy to expect perfection
when it means less work for us g.
Thanks for all you do to keep the quality so
high.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil
To: Message
We saw a sudden ~50% increase on July 16th, but only fluctuations and
moderate growth since then. On weekdays we're now at 80% spam, 95% or
better on weekends.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent:
I have an active SA. I've sent support requests twice in the past few
months to support@ and have gotten no response.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Computer House Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:11
David Barkerhas also been good about
responding, but that's not the issue. We should be able to go through
standard support channels instead of having to remember to redirect support
requests to alternative personnel.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Computer
House Support
To:
Nope... list is still active. If you're having trouble, I would suggest
calling Declude
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Oren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 1:48 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: Declude List
Hi Pete,
Why the change? FTP is more efficient for transferring files than HTTP.
Can we request longer support for FTP to allow adequate time for everyone to
schedule, test, and make the change?
I remember trying dHTTP initially when this was set up, but it wasn't
working reliably, plus FTP is
, nothing gained, nothing lost (measurably).
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
Thanks, Pete. Appreciate you taking the time to explain what's happening in
more detail.
I'm curious as to why FTP is more difficult than HTTP to debug, deploy,
secure, and scale, though. I tend to think of them on equal footing
Fortunately with Outlook Express we have the Ctrl-W function to initiate the
forwarding process. Then we can just type in the first few characters of the
address and hit Alt-S to send. Not as quick as a single button, but much
quicker than Outlook without this toolbar. Takes me about 4
There have been a lot reported today. It started for us about 8:30am.
We use Declude and added a filter to catch messages with subjects starting
with Emailing:, ending with .pdf and having a body containing The
message is ready to be sent with the following file or link. This
combination may
Just got one a short while ago. Look at these headers:
Received: from p4248-ipbfp02matuyama.ehime.ocn.ne.jp [124.96.113.248] by
mail.4cweb.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD-8.22) id A0D001A0; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:41:52 -0400
Received: from [126.147.120.198] by p4248-ipbfp02matuyama.ehime.ocn.ne.jp with
Hi Pete,
We're getting a number of FPs on SNIFFER-PORN rule 1573590. The emails are
clean, NOT porn-related, and no obvious pattern was in the emails that we could
see that Sniffer might be FPing on..
Darin.
Probably not, but if you have the finder service exposed outside of your
firewall (not recommended), then yes, this will help. It has nothing to do
with SPF.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Tuesday,
SPF does help, and we've used it for about three years here, but only when the
domain being forged has an SPF policy. So, it's most useful when the recipient
domain is being forged as the sender as well.
We've seen some joe job attacks with bounces around 25k to a single address.
We filtered
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.
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
Subject: [sniffer] Re: Problem with Sniffer-Porn rule this morning
I also have hit this. A single hit, also from AOL.
Andrew.
From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin Cox
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
...@sortmonster.com] On Behalf Of
Darin Cox
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 1:49 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer] Re: RulePanic on 2654821
Neglected to mention it is a Sniffer-Porn rule.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent
Hi Pete,
We would be interested in testing the DNSBL.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil madscient...@armresearch.com
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:48 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Testing a black-list,.. want to help?
We're noticing a lot of FPs on this rule, and have added a RulePanic entry.
Pete, is there a problem with it?
Darin.
in place.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:02 AM
Subject: [sniffer] RulePanic on 2908567
We're noticing a lot of FPs on this rule, and have added a RulePanic entry.
Pete, is there a problem with it?
Darin.
Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:41 AM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: RulePanic on 2908567
Darin Cox wrote:
We're noticing a lot of FPs on this rule, and have added a RulePanic
entry.
Pete, is there a problem with it?
The rule was for passport.com -- it has
Hi Pete,
We've put a RulePanic in for 3059196, as we're getting a lot of FPs on it.
Can you look at this rule, and/or let me know what it is?
Thanks,
Darin.
#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing
I'm seeing it, too.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Peer-to-Peer (Support) suppor...@peertopeer.net
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:21 AM
Subject: [sniffer] Volume spike Mon 9AM EST
Just checking to see if anyone else is seeing a
Hi Pete,
No. Not leakage. Sniffer et al are doing their job well.
Just a large spike in incoming spam volume. It settled down for us by about
11am.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil madscient...@armresearch.com
To: Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
.
From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:snif...@sortmonster.com] On Behalf Of
Darin Cox
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:11 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer] Rule Panic on 3364665
Hi,
We've had a lot of FPs on this rule, and wanted
Thanks, Pete.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Pete McNeil
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:37 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: Rule Panic on 3364665
On 8/17/2010 3:10 PM, Darin Cox wrote:
Hi,
We've had a lot of FPs on this rule, and wanted to alert
Hi guys,
We're seeing a lot of FPs on 3741490 this morning. I've added a RulePanic for
it in our systems.
Roughly 150 FPs from 6:55am until a few minutes ago...
Darin.
-
From: Pete McNeil
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:27 AM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: RulePanic on 3741490
On 1/7/2011 10:19 AM, Darin Cox wrote:
Hi guys,
We're seeing a lot of FPs on 3741490 this morning. I've added a RulePanic
for it in our systems
, 2011 1:43 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: RulePanic on 3741490
On 1/7/2011 12:33 PM, Darin Cox wrote:
Hmmm... so 70 minutes after the rule was released we were notified of the
rule update for auto-update of rulebase, but at 10:11ET we still hadn't gotten
the update for the 8:53am removal. Anything
Hi Pete,
We're seeing a ton of FPs on a Sniffer-Schemes rule # 4764784.
Darin.
expect at least 30% were FPs for us. Most were referencing PO #s or orders for
various customers.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Darin Cox
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:17 PM
Subject: [sniffer] FPs on Sniffer-Schemes
Hi Pete,
We're seeing a ton
-
From: Pete McNeil
To: Message Sniffer Community
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:22 PM
Subject: [sniffer] Re: FPs on Sniffer-Schemes
On 3/12/2012 5:41 PM, Darin Cox wrote:
Started getting hits at 4:30pm EST up to 15 minutes ago (5:25pm EST).
I think I can see part of the problem (possibly
Hi Pete,
Would you mind sharing your calculations of confidence and probability? I'm
looking at the stats for p=1.0 and curious about the low confidence values.
I would have expected high confidence where there were no good samples and a
lot of bad... or do I have something backwards?
Probably unrelated... and due to a significant increase in spam over the
past few days.
Darin.
From: Richard Stupek
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:18 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer] Re: IP Change on rulebase delivery system
Not sure if its related but since yesterday
Richard,
Do you have any directories with a large number of files (4k)? We had a
similar problem a few months back with sniffer scans taking much longer to
complete and sniffer temporary files being left over. We finally traced the
performance issues to a frequently accessed directory with
Nice stats, Andrew!
And Pete, thanks for spending so much time and effort to make it work so
well, despite us beating on you because it doesn’t catch every spam campaign
from the very first message! Sniffer has always been our number one tool in
this battle.
Darin.
From: Colbeck, Andrew
When we had sluggish performance similar that yours, resulting in numerous
sniffer .tmp files in the spool, the cause was eventually traced to a
proliferation of files in the sniffer directory. Clearing them out brought
performance back up to normal.
Darin.
From: e...@protologic.com
Sent:
be
different on our systems.
Matt
On 6/27/2013 5:25 PM, Darin Cox wrote:
When we had sluggish performance similar that yours, resulting in numerous
sniffer .tmp files in the spool, the cause was eventually traced to a
proliferation of files in the sniffer directory. Clearing them out
Hi Pete,
Our oldest production servers still have 1.1 - 1.4 GHz P3's in them.
However, for mail our oldest are quad core 3Ghz Xeons.
Darin.
-Original Message-
From: Pete McNeil
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 9:43 AM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer] What is your
94 matches
Mail list logo