Message received...
Sharon
Portage College
|-+-->
| | Pete McNeil|
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | search.com>|
| | Sent by: |
| | <[EMAIL PROTEC
pong...
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello sniffer,
Just testing.
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
Got it but was not marked with [sniffer] in the subject line
Goran Jovanovic
Omega Network Solutions
> -Original Message-
> From: sniffer@sortmonster.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
> Of Pete McNeil
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:12 AM
> To: sniffer@sortmonster.com
> Subject: Tes
Pong
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall find!"
> -Original Message-
> From: sniffer@sortmonster.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete
> McNeil
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:12 PM
> To: sniffer@sortmonster.com
> Subject: Test
>
> Hello sniffer,
>
> Just testing.
Ping?
Pong.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
MathiasSent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 3:59 PMTo:
sniffer@SortMonster.comSubject: [sniffer] Test
Apologies, but need
to test.
Robert
Title: Message
Well,
an indirect way to do this is to use the (undocumented?) Declude
directive:
rsp
set off TESTNAME
as the
first bit of text in your test message. That won't actually trigger
sniffer, but it will for the purpose of making your JunkMail think that the test
has been t
On Friday, December 10, 2004, 4:25:50 PM, Bonno wrote:
BB> Hi,
BB>
BB> Is there a test sender where I can have the program send us
BB> a test mail that should fail a specific sniffer test?
BB>
BB> I know I can test sniffer itself agains a single good and
BB> bad file, but I want to test the
thanks for sharing
- Original Message -
From: "Landry William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:05 AM
Subject: RE: [sniffer] Test ordering/precedence
Here's what my Sniffer global.cfg entries for look like:
SNIFFER-
eed some advice.
Thanks,
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Landry William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:05 PM
Subject: RE: [sniffer] Test ordering/precedence
Here's what my Sniffer global.cfg entries for look like:
SN
You will need to use your LicenseID and AuthCode, and want to adjust the
weights to meet your own needs and requirements.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: Serge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 6:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:[sniffer] Test ordering/precede
Where can i find examples of using "exit codes" to assign different weights
depending on groupes, when using sniffer with declude/imail ?
TIA
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Matuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:59 PM
Subj
Pete,
We have rules setup in declude based upon sniffer return codes 60 and 62 to
mark all messages with those tests as spam, however we do not have any 61 or
62 return codes setup. Can you briefly explain what each of these groups
includes and a false positive rate for each.
Jim Matuska Jr.
C
Pete McNeil wrote:
M> SNIFFER-EXPERIMENTAL...23.32%
M> SNIFFER-IP...9.70%
M> SNIFFER-OBFUSCATION...2.02%
M> SNIFFER-GENERAL.1.64%
I must be tired, but I don't understand these numbers in this context.
What are the perce
Thanks Pete, but let me just stress the largest issue that I see and I
think you already are aware of it. The new IP classification is the
most likely to produce false positives and it's result code of 60 places
precedence of that over General, Experimental and Obfuscation hits.
There is a la
John,
If you read this more carefully, I was not suggesting that action be
taken that would affect everyone's system in such a way that it would
require modifications. The 60 result code was recently changed from
Gray rules to IP rules, and that change may or may not suggest a
modification to
Matt Matt Matt.
Then everyone would have to make sure
they made the relevant changes on their systems.
As we have seen on the Declude Junkmail list, there will
always be those who set up their systems and then forget about them. Making a
change like that would cause problems.
We have done everything the mailing has been saying, and we have 1.79, and
we catch about 3 viruses per day, but we know that our customers are still
receiving 30 to 40 of these per day or more. Is there anything that can be
done in our configuration that is sent to us every night to rid us of th
this
problem?
Eddie Arrants
Cape Lookout Internet Services
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:46 PM
To: Richard Farris; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
>This may have been aswe
This may have been aswered before but what do we do with the emails coming
in and getting by the filter with .zip files that look like a virus...I have
Declude 1.79 installeddo I have to go as far as to exclude all .zip
files?
Not quite. You need to ban all encrypted .ZIP files (since no AV p
Tech Support
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
> At 04:17 PM 5/4/2004, you wrote:
> >At 02:49 PM 5/4/2004, Vivek Khera wrote:
> >
> &
At 04:17 PM 5/4/2004, you wrote:
At 02:49 PM 5/4/2004, Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 4, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Pete McNeil wrote:
Every rulebase is potentially a different size & composition, plus sizes
typically change with each update. I'm glad to hear all the positive
reports on this. :-)
Forgive me...
At 02:49 PM 5/4/2004, Vivek Khera wrote:
On May 4, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Pete McNeil wrote:
Every rulebase is potentially a different size & composition, plus sizes
typically change with each update. I'm glad to hear all the positive
reports on this. :-)
Forgive me... What is the URL for the zipped
On May 4, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Pete McNeil wrote:
Every rulebase is potentially a different size & composition, plus
sizes typically change with each update. I'm glad to hear all the
positive reports on this. :-)
I updated my perl program that does fail-safe (at least on unix-like
systems) fetch t
byte than to 1:
12:24:17 (78.89 KB/s) - `sniffer2.new.gz' saved [1983539/1983539]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 8:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
mod_gzip is now configu
il 30, 2004 8:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
mod_gzip is now configured on our web server to handle .snf files. This
means that if your download mechanism is capable of accepting gzip encoding
then you can get your .snf file from the web server for less than 1Mbyte
typi
Appears to work beautifully.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] test
At 07:13 AM 5/1/2004, you wrote:
> > This can be done with wget, for e
At 07:13 AM 5/1/2004, you wrote:
> This can be done with wget, for example, but setting this up appears to be
> technically complex - so I'm going to leave it at that for now. (Requires
> the --header switch and piping the output through gzip)
It is not so complex:
In the wget command change
-O s
I guess things have been pretty quiet.
Here's a tiny update that might liven things up.
mod_gzip is now configured on our web server to handle .snf files. This
means that if your download mechanism is capable of accepting gzip encoding
then you can get your .snf file from the web server for less
:-)
At 04:31 PM 3/29/2004, you wrote:
Didn't happen this
time, nevermind!
Frederic Tarasevicius
Internet Information Services, Inc.
http://www.i-is.com/
810-794-4400
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Fred
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:
Didn't happen this time, nevermind!
Frederic TaraseviciusInternet Information Services, Inc.http://www.i-is.com/810-794-4400mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Fred
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:42
PM
Subject: [sniffer] Test
30 matches
Mail list logo
