Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Multiple Exit Codes

2010-05-05 Thread Pete McNeil
Title: Release 4.10.42 On 5/5/2010 4:05 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:   The golden rule for external tests and for RBLs is – if you have multiple lines using the SAME “command” (e.g., the 18 “SNF” lines), or referring to the same external program (e.g., 5 invURIBL lines), or

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Multiple Exit Codes

2010-05-05 Thread Andy Schmidt
Thanks Pete. Hopefully these discussions (and seeing your responsiveness) will convince more folks decide to give Sniffer a try! >> I'm not completely sure what you are asking << The golden rule for external tests and for RBLs is - if you have multiple lines using the SAME "command" (e.

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Multiple Exit Codes

2010-05-05 Thread Pete McNeil
Title: Release 4.10.42 On 5/5/2010 3:24 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Dave (just in case this got overlooked – or I missed the answer),   >> Also even though there are multiple entries the test only runs once and the resulted exit code is the triggered. << I know that al

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread Andy Schmidt
Yes, Declude already has TWO weights associated with SNFIPREP (one for positive, one for negative). Just as you said, but multiplying with the positive or negative weight, as need be, one would get two linear slopes from the center point. On top of that, Dave has a "basepoint" option that

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Multiple Exit Codes

2010-05-05 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi Dave (just in case this got overlooked - or I missed the answer), >> Also even though there are multiple entries the test only runs once and the resulted exit code is the triggered. << I know that all 18 "SNF" rule lines only require one invocation of Sniffer - which are then evaluated 18 d

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread Pete McNeil
On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote: Hi Dave,   Hm – yes,I think if you added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the config file, you would have could cover the reputation range from -1 to +1  in 0.1 step increments.   Not elegant – but would have the same effect

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi Dave, Hm - yes,I think if you added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the config file, you would have could cover the reputation range from -1 to +1 in 0.1 step increments. Not elegant - but would have the same effect as multiplying the reputation range with the defined max weight.

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight Scheme

2010-05-05 Thread David Barker
Just a thought. We would have to test it but do you think the same thing could be achieved using: IPREPUTATION-3 SNFIPREP x -3 0 -5 IPREPUTATION-2 SNFIPREP x -2 0 -5 IPREPUTATION-1 SNFIPREP x -1 0 -5 IPREPUTATION-0SNFIPREP x 0 5 -5 IPREPUTATION+1SN

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration - Bad snf_engine.xml

2010-05-05 Thread David Barker
Yes you are correct this was reported to us . The file should have been updated with this release. I will ensure this is resolved. To correct this. In the snf_engine.xml change To From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy Schmidt Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8

[Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration - Bad snf_engine.xml

2010-05-05 Thread Andy Schmidt
Dave, Pete has helped me figure out that your XML samples, e.g.: http://interim.declude.com/41048/Scanners/SNF/snf_engine.xml is NOT a valid XML file. Specifically, the closing tag for the "node" element is invalid. It MUST be: (Currently it is "").