Perhaps I used the wrong terminology about what changed, since I do not know what your system architecture is, but I remember you mentioning a significant change at the time. Immediately afterwards we saw a rash of false positives. That is what I would like to have controls in place to avoid.
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 completely understand that some issues DC> will not be foreseeable... I did say "mostly", not entirely. The switch to DC> the automated bots caused a rash of false positives in our system. <snip/> Actually, there is the error I was talking about -- (I'm not pointing fingers either, just trying to set the record straight.) The automated bots had been online and part of the system for several years when the error occurred. There was no cut-over to announce. DC> What I would be looking for is an announcement of a specific date/time for a DC> cutover so we could freeze just before that, and unfreeze once it was clear DC> that no glut of false positives would result. I completely agree, and that is our policy. Before we turn on anything important, we will announce it, as we have in the past. Even if for no other reason than we want you to know we've done something cool... but certainly so that we can have everyone aware and watching out for any un-expected results (good or bad). _M This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
