Pete, Is there anyway to get an automatic response similar to the one listed below for the FP address, but for submissions to your spam@ address? It would be nice to get some feedback when submitting spam.
Jim Matuska Jr. Computer Tech2, CCNA Nez Perce Tribe Information Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:28 PM To: Kevin Rogers Subject: Re: [sniffer] False Positives On Wednesday, February 15, 2006, 3:54:50 PM, Kevin wrote: KR> My users have been getting a lot of FPs by Sniffer lately. They send me KR> the email with the FULL HEADERS displayed and I forward this email on to KR> SortMonster. The program they use to analyze incoming submissions check KR> MY email headers, determine that SNIFFER was not at fault and sends me KR> back an email saying it didn't find any flags. Just to clarify a bit, here is the standard response you're probably talking about: [FPR:0] The message did not match any active black rules as submitted. The rules may have been modified or removed. If you provide matching log entries from your system then we can research this further. Note that sometimes our false processing system may not identify the rules that matched this message on your system due to changes in the submitted content that might occur during the forwarding process. Please also be sure you are running the latest version, that your rulebase file is up to date, and that you do not have any unresolved errors in your Sniffer log file. Bug fixes in newer versions may resolve false positive issues or reduce the risk of false positives through enhanced features and new technologies. Certain errors in your log file may indicate a corrupted rulebase. --- The software we use to scan false positive submissions is a version of SNF that includes every rule we have in our system. If the messages does not match any of these rules, MOST of the time it means that the rule has been removed already. If that is not the case, then the next step is to provide matching log entries. On some systems this is not necessary because the headers may already contain SNF x-header data that shows the rules involved. This process is not intended to make things difficult, but to save time. The majority of the time, our local scanner will identify the rule or rules in question and we will respond accordingly. When that is not the case we simply need more data to move forward with the investigation. Usually, when a rule is still in the system and it does not match a false positive submission it is because the original message was altered during the forwarding process or that some condition of being attached has prevented the scanner on this end from reproducing the result you had on your system. Hope this helps, _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
