Re: [sniffer] Rash of false positives

[Darin Cox]

No, we automatically update with every notification of a new rulebase.   Looking further, they started just before 5pm ET yesterday.  So far, it's about 10 times the usual number of Sniffer false positives.  We've sent quite a few this morning to false (at) for processing. Darin.     ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Lushinsky To: sniffer@SortMonster.com Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [sniffer] Rash of false positives After reviewing all the blocked messages for the past 2 days on 2 different servers, I found no false positives. Do you happen to have 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.com> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:45:39 -0500 Subject: [sniffer] Rash of false positives 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 control soon.   It would also be extremely helpful if you could speed up the false positive processing.  Lately it seems to take 2-4 days for the rules to be adjusted, which usually means more of the same are caught and submitted over that time.  I believe speeding up that process would result in fewer to process all around.   Thanks, Darin.