Is the GBUdb currently sharing information as described in the
documentation? Do the GBUdb XCI commands detailed within snf_xci.xml work
through the tcp interface?
Ok. We are seeing a large amount of spam lately that is not being picked up
through snf and most of it has the from and the to set the same. Are you
seeing anything similar?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pete McNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hello Richard,
Thursday, December 4, 2008,
Does the snf XML command interface for GBUdb work? I was considering
pumping in bad IPs as I find them into the GBUdb and also short-circuiting
spam processing by calling the GBUdb to determine the status of an IP to
reduce workload. Is this something that sounds like a workable idea?
Which of the 2 scan commands should we use to scan a message? Does sending
the IP address help improve scanning?
snfxciscannerscan file='filepath'//scanner/xci/snf
OR
snfxciscannerscan file='filepath' xhdr='no' log='no'
ip='12.34.56.78'//scanner/xci/snf
So there would not be a real benefit to passing the IP over when it is the
is already in the mail having been added by the mail server?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
Richard Stupek wrote:
Which of the 2 scan commands should we use to scan
? Will
gbudb XCI commands (like bad) show up in a log file?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
Richard Stupek wrote:
So there would not be a real benefit to passing the IP over when it is the
is already in the mail having been added by the mail server
Thanks for the info. Is there any diagnostic information available when a
gbudb sync occurs?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
Richard Stupek wrote:
A question on GBUDB utilization. I show a current utilization of 95%
(from the log file) which
passing through nullify the bad event? Should I post 2 bad events for
each mail that is caught after sniffer?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
Richard Stupek wrote:
Thanks for the info. Is there any diagnostic information available when a
gbudb
I just started seeing this error for the getrulebase.cmd script. Is there
an issue going on?
Congratulations. Keep up the good work!
Not sure if its related but since yesterday SNFserver CPU utilization has
been inordinately high (50%) for the middle of the day with not any
additional volume in mail being received.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
Hi Sniffer Folks,
We are
Its odd because the number of messags snf is processing isn't more than
usual and the % of spam being detected through snf is actually lower than
typical yet is is routinely maxing out 4 processors at 100%.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
On
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
On 2013-03-27 16:49, Richard Stupek wrote:
Its odd because the number of messags snf is processing isn't more than
usual and the % of spam being detected through snf is actually lower than
typical yet is is routinely maxing out 4 processors at 100%.
You're
.
*From:* Richard Stupek rstu...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:10 PM
*To:* Message Sniffer Community sniffer@sortmonster.com
*Subject:* [sniffer] Re: IP Change on rulebase delivery system
Ok looking at the log I see quite a few messages taking over a second to
process (samples
, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
On 2013-03-29 12:59, Richard Stupek wrote:
well when all else fails restarting snf seems to have corrected the issue
for now.
In that case, it is likely that RAM fragmentation was involved. Dropping
the process allowed the fragmentation
Can you point me at the documentation for the truncate blacklist and its
usage?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
On 2013-05-23 15:22, Richard Stupek wrote:
Looks like I have this issue again (pegging 4 core cpu) and resetting the
process
Would this:
http://armresearch.com/support/articles/software/snfServer/xci/gbudb.jsp yield
the same results as using the ip4 blocklist?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Pete McNeil
madscient...@armresearch.comwrote:
On 2013-05-23 16:41, Richard Stupek wrote:
Can you point me
Pete
I thought the local gbudb got updates from the service or was that a future
enhancement?
Original message
Subject: [sniffer] Re: IP Change on rulebase delivery system
From: Richard Stupek rstu...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'rstu...@gmail.com');
To: Message
18 matches
Mail list logo
