Hello Sniffer Folks,
I have been doing some work in the database today to make the rule
strength analysis and weak rule removal process more efficient.
Along the way I discovered an appreciable number of rules that had
somehow been left with high strength numbers even though their
Thanks Pete, these are the kind of proactive notification I wish some of our
other vendors followed.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: Pete McNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:35 PM
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Subject: [sniffer] Weak rule removal work...
I've sure been seeing it. My db updates are triggered off email update
notices from sniffer, so I know I have the latest.
Feels like something's gone wrong with sniffer due to the year change.
Rick Robeson
getlocalnews.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
many of them for ... my cheating wife.
Sorry to hear about your marital problems.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kirk Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 05:56 PM
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Subject: [sniffer] new spam storm?
I've noted that dictionary attack type spam is generally of this
variety, and while you are probably blocking a great deal of this, the
sheer volume makes it look like you aren't doing that well against it.
I've also noted that the domains that they use are frequently changed,
thus escaping
On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, 6:06:00 PM, Rick wrote:
RR I've sure been seeing it. My db updates are triggered off email update
RR notices from sniffer, so I know I have the latest.
RR Feels like something's gone wrong with sniffer due to the year change.
We are definitely experiencing a spam
At 06:03 PM 1/4/2005 -0500, Andy Schmidt wrote:
many of them for ... my cheating wife.
Sorry to hear about your marital problems.
LOL! Apparently the tramp's been sleeping all over, and there are plenty of
websites that can show me how, where, when, and with whom. Darned if I know
when she's
On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, 6:13:24 PM, Matt wrote:
M I've noted that dictionary attack type spam is generally of this
M variety, and while you are probably blocking a great deal of this, the
M sheer volume makes it look like you aren't doing that well against it.
M I've also noted that the
Dear Pete,
Our rulebase file grew from 11 meg to 17.5 meg since the last download a few
hours ago. Is this right?
Michael Stein
Computer House
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and
(un)subscription instructions go to
Correction, make that 23 meg!
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Computer House Support [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:33 AM
Subject: [sniffer] RuleBase ktk82hrr
Dear Pete,
Our rulebase file grew from 11 meg to 17.5 meg since the
On Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 12:41:34 AM, Computer wrote:
CHS Correction, make that 23 meg!
Thanks for the heads up --- something is wrong, I'll figure it out.
You compiled with 231000 rules!
_M
This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and
(un)subscription
Hello Sniffer Folks,
The changes in the rule strength tuning have uncovered a bug in the
rulebase compilers. The result of this bug was that shortly after removing
approximately 7 weak rules, the rulebase began to compile with
nearly twice as many rules as they should have (213000+).
Yep, just checked mine rulebase too, went from 17mb to just under 25mb.
Things still appear to be functioning okay.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: Pete McNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:49 PM
To: Computer House Support
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] RuleBase
13 matches
Mail list logo
