ing to investigate further and apply white
DC> rules. The others were normal FP reports.
DC> Thanks,
DC> Darin.
DC> - Original Message -
DC> From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DC> To: "Darin Cox"
DC> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006
;
To: "Darin Cox"
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] False positive processing
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 11:37:30 AM, Darin wrote:
DC> Nope. None of them.
DC> I haven't heard back from the replies to a couple of false positives on
the
DC>
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 11:37:30 AM, Darin wrote:
DC> Nope. None of them.
DC> I haven't heard back from the replies to a couple of false positives on the
DC> 10th, and we haven't heard anything from our submissions on the 16th (6) and
DC> 17th (2). I don't remember if we've heard anything f
--- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Darin Cox"
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] False positive processing
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 9:38:46 AM, Darin wrote:
DC>
DC>
DC> Hi Pete,
DC>
DC>
DC>
DC&g
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 9:38:46 AM, Darin wrote:
DC>
DC>
DC> Hi Pete,
DC>
DC>
DC>
DC> Are you getting behind on false positive processing? We have
DC> gotten a response in a few days, and are still forwarding false
DC> positives for an FP report that we asked for a while rule on
Hi Pete,
Are you getting behind on false positive
processing? We have gotten a response in a few days, and are still
forwarding false positives for an FP report that we asked for a while rule on
the 10th.
Appreciate you looking into it.
Darin.
Pete,
Thanks for the quicker turnaround in the last few
days for false positive processing. We're seeing about half day
now.
Much appreciated!
Darin.
