unreliable I'm thinking. It it was to be scored, I would much rather it
be separate from other tests.
Matt
Herb Guenther wrote:
At one time we had floated the idea of a rule that would mark any
email that was more than 24-48 hrs ahead or behind the actual current
time and date as spam. I just got
10) Open the Services MMC
11) Start the Sniffer service
12) Set the Sniffer service to Automatic
Matt
Matt wrote:
I'm
going to give this one a try right now since I have the Resource Kit
installed already. Just one question...do I need to change the
arguments in my Declude config, or will t
://www.mailpure.com/service.gif
The real test will have to wait for rush hour though.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
The service definition takes care of the persistence. Your Declude
config should not be changed.
_M
At 01:05 AM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
I'm going to give this one a try right now since I
Have you tried a reboot? Checked your error logs? Made sure that DNS
and all of your E-mail services are running?
Is there even a chance that you will be able to receive this message?
Matt
Richard Farris wrote:
I just did an Windows NT update and now I cant get any email...when I turn
in the mean
time though.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
snf2check.exe will catch a partial download but it will not catch
corruption in the middle of the file.
_M
At 03:57 PM 3/25/2004, you wrote:
I run snf2check.exe against every .snf file downloaded. I just
checked it
again manually, and no errors
to
the way that processes when traffic is less heavy.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
I must
be getting punchy... but this just occurred to me... Anybody else
remember when a high performance hard drive had a seek time just under
30ms ??
_M
At 06:01 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote:
If
thats all that happens
higher and landing in Drop). This morning though the size of my
rulebase again dropped by about 450 KB.
I was just wondering if this might have been a hiccup with a bad
compilation or maybe you were testing something out?
Thanks,
Matt
if there was a blip, Sniffer still does a wonderful
job of tagging lots and lots of E-mail, just not quite as much as the
day before.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
At 12:57 PM 5/19/2004, you wrote:
Pete,
I noted late last night that my rulebase grew by 700 KB over the size
of the previous one
h encoding
languages I've found.
Hope this helps.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
2 thoughts from me:
1. Right on on the Nigerian scams, possible keeping these rules longer. As I was forwarding out a Nigerian scam to the spam mailbox, I too wondered how long the Nigerian rules were kept in play. I
because that might accomplish the same goals, however I'm not
sure if it also scores the definition of a characterset, in which case
it would have false positives in this scenario.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
Interesting.
Are you searching for 2 character pairs with GB2312?
Scott Fisher
as Spanish since that's not
necessary for proper display in most E-mail clients, but I have seen no
proof of that.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
Interesting. I generally just punish people if GB2312 ?BIG5 or such are in the headers. This is overwhelmingly SPAM, but like you siad there are English i
encoded in
KOI8-R and I wasn't filtering for that...but I am now :) I also added
KOI8-U (the Ukrainian version) just for good measure.
Matt
Scott Fisher wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to reverse the order?
Run the subject and header tests on the majority of the mail.
Then run the body
-time
functionality may well be more experienced DB admins or programmers and
may be able to handle whatever format that you throw at them.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
We are working on specs for real-time reporting out of Sniffer and
haven't had a lot of feedback on the XML based format. We were
of the time. Including such phrases however would
increase our false positive rate without a measurable benefit in spam
capture rates. I have even asked Pete to remove some phrase hits from
my own rulebase for exactly this reason.
Matt
Agid, Corby wrote:
Surprising missed spam
Hello
suggestive one. Given that, I could weight accordingly.
Matt
Agid, Corby wrote:
I suppose everyone's
userbases have differenent requirements. An ISP or private
enterprisemight worry about false postives on "horny teenagers" and
"penis enlargement", but for our loca
to customize the precedence as a part of our
rulebase.
Thanks,
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
placing the burden on his customers to do so.
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
Matt Matt
Matt.
Then
everyone would have to make sure
they made the relevant changes on their systems.
As we have
seen on the Declude Junkmail
list, there will
always be those who set up
to
modify configs, but please minimally consider it at the next opportunity
where a change such as the Gray to IP rules are done.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
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
is an indication of an
organization in total disarray.
Matt
Colbeck, Andrew wrote:
Well, to play devil's advocate ...
A poor man's way to run IMail and Message Sniffer without Declude could
certainly be done without a massive re-write. I'm not going to claim that
it would be *reliable* or *flexible
\Sniffer\Enum]
"0"="Root\\LEGACY_SNIFFER\\"
"Count"=dword:0001
"NextInstance"=dword:0001
Sorry to keep this going, but I would like to figure out what the best
practices would be, and also help Andy and/or others figure out the
sa
it that way for the service.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Yes, I too suspect that SRVANY actually allows the specifying of the entire
command line in the Appliation string, even though both the Knowledgebase
article and the full documentation implies otherwise. (The KB article and
the documentation
and I hope there is an
easier way to approach this. Note that I expect no miracles, I just
thought this was something that might be fruitful to discuss.
Matt
System Administrator wrote:
on 12/16/04 5:36 PM, Matt wrote:
The reason why you aren't seeing these is because you aren't weighti
of a system.
Sorry for the length, but I really am hoping for a way to improve this
situation and help reduce the workload that it creates for
administrators like myself that seek to tightly manage their system.
Thanks,
Matt
--
=
MailPure
that I have defined personally are as follows:
- Joe-Job NDR's.
- Challenge/Response Idiots
- AntiVirus Notifications
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 12:51:19 PM, Andrew wrote:
CA It sounds good to me, Pete.
CA May I humbly suggest that this be a new result code
of the stuff as generic as what IMail would send (no content), and
there is unfortunately no good way to tell the good from the bad. Right
now I can only offer to block all NDR's, but I suggest that they just
wait a week and the issue will clear up, and thankfully it always has so
far.
Matt
than fair by offering free migrations of their license to a
different platform, starting with SmarterMail which is very reasonably
priced and seemingly quite responsive to their customers.
Matt
Joe Wolf wrote:
I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and
Declude. We all know
,000 after that.
Please don't get me started :)
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
, but not that big of a deal if this has never
caused a noticeable problem.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Pete,
With all due respect - I think the download problem is self-inflicted,
because your web site is providing unsuitable examples to your customers!
Even with moderate bandwidth, your server would
when the time comes. Naturally, very few ever have to ask for my
opinions :)
Matt
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=
This E-Mail came
Jim,
See the Declude list, it is a Declude problem
In short, turn off SPAMHEADERS by commenting out the test. It has a
bug with 2005 years in the date header. They should be coming out with
a fix shortly.
Matt
Jim Matuska wrote:
Has anything changed recently in the
format
real-time than it already is.
Matt
Kirk Mitchell wrote:
Seems like I've been getting a ton of spam in the last few days that's
been scored as either LOW or CLEAN, many of them for cheap drugs, watches
or my cheating wife. I have AutoSNF running every 2 hours, so it shouldn't
be due to outdated
to KWM is just
some JavaScript to extract the spool data file name from my message
headers that I insert (full headers must be turned on in Web mail), and
this links to an ASP script on my server that handles everything else.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 4:03:28 PM
IP4R tests and weighted accordingly in one's config.
http://www.blackholes.us/
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Thursday, January 6, 2005, 3:42:21 PM, Jeff wrote:
JW Hi,
JW Whats the procedure for tweaking our rule base? We would
JW like to catch anything from foreign domains. If thats not
JW
t;.
Hope this helps.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Monday, January 10, 2005, 12:38:45 AM, Kirk wrote:
KM I would like to attack this more aggressively. The increase we've seen in
KM spam getting through over the last week has brought on a dramatic increase
KM in customer complaints. What
mail servers as they do now, though
it appears that it would be somewhat more complicated.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
The idea being that you don't want any more content searching than is
necessary, particularly when a recipients-dictionary-attack is underway.
Okay
roughly familiar with the terminology.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Uh, I see, you are not against the protocol sink
in principal - you are only against it IF there is no means of doing
address validation (and possible some other checks) at the same time.
Yes, I have other protocol
discussion and it may also cause those of
us that are more 'chatty' to quiet down which stifles the discussion and
the benefit that can be gleamed from it.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Saturday, February 19, 2005, 1:28:14 PM, Dave wrote:
DK I am all in favor of a SUPPORT list to announce timely
.
With that said, if performance isn't an issue with a single drive,
mirroring it in Windows might be a perfectly fine solution. I would
still lean towards a cheap RAID card for this however.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Uh, sorry, I had thought that discussion was RAID-5 vs. RAID-1?
If someone
partition, with IMail/Declude/F-Prot and about 7,000
accounts, though it was starting to stress the server at that point and
needed to be addressed.
Matt
Goran Jovanovic wrote:
Matt,
I think that
you sort of answered the
question that I did not really ask. I was really
or obfuscates in some other
way. No matter what however, every piece of spam needs a payload, which
is generally a link, E-mail address or phone number.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Monday, March 28, 2005, 2:09:52 PM, Heimir wrote:
HE Anyway that sniffer could trigger on this type of stuff?
snip/
Yes
flawlessly for me since the day that Pete released that functionality.
I am thinking that you might want to scrutinize your setup.
Hope that this helps.
Matt
Keith Johnson wrote:
Pete,
Wow, thank you for the explanation. I did let the persistent
server run for 30 min after I restarted
, the scores are based on a system that holds
at a score of 10.
Matt
--- Global.cfg ---
FORGEDPILLSPAMMERfilter
C:\IMail\Declude\Filters\ForgedPillSpammer.txtx50
--
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro
that it was a good idea to share the update to prevent
the possibility of problems. The new version is attached.
Matt
Matt wrote:
Attached is something that I coded up last night for this guy. It's
designed to be not totally dependant on one pattern so that it might
have some longevity. His
would be
the time that the bad rule was created, otherwise we need to search our
logs for it. My first hit on this was yesterday at 9 p.m. EST, but some
probably hit it earlier by up to a couple of hours I would imagine.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Sniffer Folks,
A rule was created
See my message below...restart your Sniffer service and it should work.
Matt
Computer House Support wrote:
Mail from Comcast is still getting caught, even with the panic rule in
place. Any suggestions?
Mike Stein
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and
(un
of association.
This for now is a definitely a special case due to it's success in
getting through systems early on, the lack of a legitimate payload link
(all belong to uninvolved third-parties) and the volume seen. It's
scary what someone can do if they prepare properly for such a thing.
Matt
that 66.251.60.35 was being used to seed
the virus using a link to the payload and now the infected computers
from this seeding run are sending the actual virus out as an attachment.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
New rule - 369676 under Malware.
New experimental rule on message structure: 369677
_M
why people use FireDaemon for this. My experience with
SRVANY.exe has been absolutely flawless since I integrated this, and it
has worked on both Win2k and Windows 2003.
Matt
Dan Horne wrote:
OK, I have managed to get SOMETHING working, but it still seems too slow
and something is still
You are correct. My bad.
Matt
Nick Hayer wrote:
Without regard to content I believe the edits would be made in
CurrentControlSet - not in ControlSetxxx - the later are the backups.
-Nick
Matt wrote:
Dan,
I seem to recall trying to use the AppParameters key and having
ional keys?
Something else. Did you make sure that the Sniffer service that you
created was started? No doubt it will work if you follow those
directions to a T, and there aren't any issues with your server apart
from this.
Matt
Dan Horne wrote:
I removed the AppParameters
value and put th
I have noted a few. I think that this has something to do with some
Phishing rules that are hitting on content in combination with the Yahoo
inserted footer that is advertising donations for Hurricane Katrina.
I haven't reported my latest batch of FP's yet, but I will do so now.
Matt
Marc
Quick follow-up. The bad rule appears to be 497585.
Matt
Marc Catuogno wrote:
I'm seeing a few legit e-mails from Yahoo failing sniffer. Anyone else?
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and
(un
nyone else a kick out of the
Reply-All habit :)
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
GREAT!
_M
On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 10:58:10 AM, Stephen wrote:
Pete,
It's workin
it's only one part and if the mystery
heap is the cause, it might just cause the errors to be triggered on
other IMail launched processes including Declude.exe and your virus
scanners.
Matt
John Moore wrote:
We have not run snf2check on the
updates.
-checked false positives can have a life of their
own on Sniffer sometimes.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 7:21:11 AM, Matt wrote:
M Pete,
M w3.org would be a huge problem because Outlook will insert this in the
M XML headers of any HTML generated E-mail.
M
it was,
the more likely that it could have failed.
I also searched my Sniffer logs for the rule number and found no hits.
It appears that I missed the bad rulebase.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, 6:15:13 PM, David wrote:
DS Sorry, wrong thread on the last post.
DS Add'l
Pete,
The overflow directory disappeared when 3.x was introduced. I posted a
follow up on the Declude list about how to do this.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, 8:14:53 PM, David wrote:
DS Hello Pete,
DS Tuesday, February 7, 2006, 8:11:50 PM, you wrote:
DS
an improvement. The closer to real-time we can
get, the better.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Sniffer Folks,
I have just completed work to upgrade the rulebase compiler bots.
They are now significantly more efficient. As a result you will be
seeing updates more frequently
,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Sniffer Folks,
Rulebot F002 has been placed online.
This rulebot captures and creates geocities web links from the
chatty campaigns. This is largely a time saver for us humans... we
will focus our attention more on abstracts for these campaigns now
that F002
generally been said by others
that this is the case on theirs as well. F002 has the appearance of
being hyper-accurate, and it would help if it was placed in a group with
other hyper accurate results. Even placing it in 61 (Experimental)
would be preferred over 60.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete
Pete,
I tried replying to some FP reports and I received back some loop
reports from your gateway:
Failed to deliver to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
mail loop: too many hops (too many 'Received:' header fields)
Reporting-MTA: dns; server75.appriver.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL
anism
from the mix, though you wouldn't have the opportunity to see the
messages which may not be good as a whole.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Scott,
Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 10:08:58 AM, you wrote:
For me the pain of false positives submissions is the research
that happens
told them that Outlook was a security/privacy risk on it's
own :) ...but that's another story. I would probably feel different if
I had the need for groupware though, but digs at Microsoft are
irresistible sometimes.
Matt
---BeginMessage---
Of course I'm sending the full message
to
Sniffer for the benefit of all in addition to making sure that a FP
rule will not tag something outside of the scope of what I whitelisted,
and I have to report in order to be able to see what the content of the
rule was. Customers do most of the reprocessing now, I just do the
back end stuff.
Matt
Pete,
My understanding was that Declude treats different arguments to an
executable as just being other forms of that executable so it only
processes it once. I'm not positive one way or another. It's worth
testing though.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Matt,
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Pete surely won't mind after you post your observations :)
Matt
Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If Pete doesn't mind I will post my observations in regards to the
product. I run both products (CommTouch and Sniffer).
Darrell
---
Check out
if you talked with Declude about allowing for the
insertion of headers, or even if you did this on your own. I believe
the D* file may be editable when the external app is launched. That
would make recovery of this so much easier for me (minutes instead of
hours of work).
Thanks,
Matt
Pete
many that are scoring Sniffer
lower than our block weight to then score these multiple classification
hits higher. This wouldn't be useful though unless it was seperated by
types like I listed since I often find multiple hits under the current
rulebase format.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote
are a part of that system.
If so, the Network Solutions issues yesterday did cause issues with
resolving off of blacklists as it has been reported, and that could
explain the extra leakage.
Matt
Darin Cox wrote:
We saw a sudden ~50% increase on July 16th, but only fluctuations and
moderate
Kudos Pete! Just wanted to say thanks.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello SNF Folks,
The plan was to hold off until the next major release, however in
light of recent increases in spam traffic we are pushing out a new
version with our faster engine included. All other upgrades are will
wait
. Previously, we never
saw this since those domains weren't being attacked. I have no clue as
to why anyone is still providing catch-alls, especially mail forwarding
services like BulkRegister. It just seems like a good way to limit the
capacity of a server by 75% or more.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote
Try WPUT
http://sourceforge.net/projects/wput/
Matt
K Mitchell wrote:
At 11:16 PM 12/7/2006 -0700, Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Give this a try: http://www.ncftp.com/download/
Just did about 5 minutes ago. It won't run without specifying a
destination directory
. SmarterMail certainly has a lower cost of
entry. I would trust Jay's experience with MailEnable considering his
extensive experience.
Matt
Jay Sudowski - Handy Networks LLC wrote:
Hi Phil -
Good question. We integrate Sniffer into SmarterMail via Declude.
However, SmarterMail does have
. There are
more common issues with international ISP's and webmail providers than
with things like yahoo.com, gmail.com, rr.com, etc. Many don't get a
lot of international traffic so they don't notice it.
Matt
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
Unless I'm mistaken, rule 1370762 was targeting the same
circumstance, and we certainly wouldn't ever see things like yahoo.com,
gmail.com and rr.com mail servers listed like we see with some degree of
regularity under the current method.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Andy,
Tuesday, April 3, 2007, 5:15:12 PM, you wrote:
Hi Jonathan:
That's
uses their bandwidth for downloads, that could
explain things.
Matt
Chuck Schick wrote:
Speeds are really slow and the connection is lost before
completionEverything checks out good on our end. Is something going on
with the sortmonster end of things?
Chuck Schick
Warp 8, Inc.
(303)-421
times in an hour! I suspect that
our gateways were blocking some of this automatically, and I also tried
to block it at the router level but it kept popping out of other address
blocks.
Matt
sure
not to have IMail's MaxQueProc registry entry set to more than 30).
Matt
Keith Johnson wrote:
Darrell,
Did you alter your heap size 3rd entry? If so, did you go to 1024 or other. I
found this article by crossing a Declude page, appears to be what I need to go
after.
http
-heap-overview.aspx
Matt
Matt wrote:
Keith,
When I looked at this several years ago, this is what I came up with:
Windows allows a total of 48 MB in the heap, and each service
started process uses the third setting in the chain, or 512 KB by
default, and there is about 10 MB
, and then it stayed with those 100 hung. Is there
anything that can be done in Sniffer to kill off these hung processes
in an automated and proactive manner? I recently upgraded to the
latest version and I was probably a version or two behind, and I don't
recall this happening before.
Thanks,
Matt
until the evening in the event that
you want to take a look at it.
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Matt,
Thursday, June 14, 2007, 12:44:32 PM, you wrote:
snip/
I also had about 10 errors waiting to be cleared from another
application, but probably because of the way
All auto-responders should be burnt in hell
Have a nice day :)
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Regarding this thread and to nobody in particular:
I would like to say a word or two before this gets out of hand.
Our policy on this list is to provide the answers needed no matter how
obvious
SRVANY works perfectly and is free with Windows. Why not use that?
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Sniffer Folks,
We are working on an installer for the command-line version of SNF
V3.0.
We are considering re-distributing XYNTService to setup the
SNFServer.exe as part of the installation
of properly
testing this is possibly more work than creating your own service.
All IMO of course.
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Matt,
Friday, May 9, 2008, 3:57:42 PM, you wrote:
SRVANY works perfectly and is free with Windows. Why not use that?
We can't redistribute SRVANY
Pete,
Glad you got the joke. I'll allow you a a little time to take your mind
off of the future :)
Thanks,
Matt
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Matt,
Thursday, June 26, 2008, 4:21:42 PM, you wrote:
Pete,
Now that you got that taken care of, can you give us an idea when you
lifting is performed. Alligate requires almost no resources, though you
should dedicate a box to it so that other things don't step on it's feet.
Matt
Steve Guluk wrote:
Hello,
I run iMail 9.0 and would like a program that can do GeoIP to
screen foreign countries before they even get to iMail
clear to me what the most current one is.
Any suggestions as to the cause or solution?
Thanks,
Matt
#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
This list is for discussing
Darin,
I'm not seeing that sort of thing. With 3.x, there doesn't appear to be
any extraneous file creation in the Sniffer program directory, and never
any TMP files in my spool. I do not have Sniffer modifying headers, so
that may be different on our systems.
Matt
On 6/27/2013 5:25 PM
This is an automated message from the mailing list software. In order
to unsubscribe you must issue the command please unsubscribe.
#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list
looking to retool presently just because it's time. So if you are
convinced that this is due to low resources, don't concern yourself with it.
Matt
On 6/28/2013 10:36 AM, Pete McNeil wrote:
On 2013-06-27 20:01, Matt wrote:
I'm attaching a snippet of my log. About 100 lines past the start,
where
I'll certainly look more closely next time. Hopefully I'll be migrated
before this happens again :)
Matt
On 6/28/2013 1:44 PM, Darin Cox wrote:
How about running performance monitor to watch disk I/O, mem, cpu,
page file, etc. over time in the hopes of catching one of the events?
Darin
.
The server itself could have some issues that could be causing this.
Maybe the file system is screwy, or Windows itself, or memory errors, or
whatever.
Matt
On 6/28/2013 2:12 PM, E. H. (Eric) Fletcher wrote:
Matt:
I mentioned in a previous post that we had experienced something similar
/reset?
I also checked and found that we added that larger client on 6/1, and
outside of that, customer counts have been fairly consistent.
Matt
On 6/28/2013 2:56 PM, e...@protologic.com wrote:
Matt:
Coincidentally (I hope) this happened to us on the 22nd also. It did
not stop working
Intel 5400 series Xeon here. But don't forget virtualization. I'm not
sure what CPU virtualization does to targeting your code.
Matt
On 12/27/2013 9:43 AM, Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Sniffer Folks,
We would like to know what your oldest production CPU is.
When building new binaries
.
Windows does know the processor version as well, though that's just meta
information I believe and may not be reliable. There are of course
several other popular flavors of virtualization that I am not familiar with.
Matt
On 12/27/2013 3:58 PM, Pete McNeil wrote:
On 2013-12-27 15:45
being seen to be working - this
monitoring info could really demonstrate the power and speed of message
sniffer as well as help all those admins keep their management happier :)
Matt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: 10 May 2004
Take a look at Mdaemon from altn.com instead of Imail? Great product, great
support, great attitude. Oh and works very well with le sniffer :)
Matt D
MaxNett Ltd
t.08701 624 898
f.08701 624 889
www.maxnett.co.uk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
You truly are a mad scientist - But we love ya! :)
Matt
MaxNett Ltd
T.08701 624 989
F.08701 624 889
www.maxnett.co.uk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: 23 March 2005 00:37
To: Colbeck, Andrew
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Money
98 matches
Mail list logo
