Right. 15 from today. Let me know what you find out. The ones from the
10th were replies to FP processing to investigate further and apply white
rules. The others were normal FP reports.
Thanks,
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darin Cox"
Se
.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] False Positive - no reaction?
Hi Pete,
I agree that the email notification is tricky - because you might respond to
spa
I like this idea more than the email notification. I really don't need more
emails.
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] False Positive - no reaction?
Hi Pe
Hi Pete,
I agree that the email notification is tricky - because you might respond to
spam - and, you may NOT respond to someone who did not use an authorized
address.
On the other hand, if I KNEW there was an auto-response and I did NOT get a
response, it would be an indication to me, the user,
Pete, other than database update e-mails, I see know e-mails from
"@microneil.com" or [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the last 2 days received by my
server.
John T
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Pete McNeil
> Sent: Tuesday,
