[sniffer] Re: Sniffer 3.0 Installed

2008-10-04 Thread Pete McNeil




Hello Andy,

First, let me say thanks for sharing all of this. We don't often get detailed feedback on these things. Your valuable insights will be used to make later releases better.

With that said I will add a few comments here and there to explain why things are the way they are and help others achieve their goals (which might be different).

Saturday, October 4, 2008, 2:12:47 AM, you wrote:







Hi,

Didnt realize I had been uninstalled for a few months.

I saw that V3 was released, so I gave it a shot. I unzipped the installation files to a new /SNF folder. All files were expanded into the same folder (your zip file had not subfolders!).





The vast majority of SNF installations on Windows systems keep all SNF components in the same folder. So, for the majority of folks SNF is simply decompressed into "it's own folder", configured, and launched. This makes things simple and there is no question where to find things.

Along the way we have been asked for the ability to put logs in a different location, get rulebsae files from a different location, configuration files, and so forth. We've added those features so that the folks who have reason to move things around can do so.

We decided not to create a presumed directory structure for SNF because the folks who've asked us to provide these features all had their own unique way to divide things and move them. Any structure we created would have been wrong for most folks, so we keep the single folder option as our default since it is what everyone was used to and what most of our customers have been using.

SNF is used on a lot of platforms -- each with their own conventions. Not only that but within each platform administrators and user communities develop their own preferences.

The paths/ section described next allows folks to manipulate some file locations according to user preferences.








Following the instructions I customized the XML files.

I noticed THESE parameters:

  node identity='D:/IMail/declude/SNF/identity.xml'

paths
  log path='D:/IMail/declude/SNF/Log/'/
  rulebase path='D:/IMail/declude/SNF/Rulebase/'/
  workspace path='D:/IMail/declude/SNF/Workspace/'/
/paths

Im a believer in keeping different data in their distinct subfolders, so I set up the /Log, /Rulebase and /Workspace subfolders by hand and updated the XML file.

The I took a wild guess that SOME files would have to be moved into those subfolders  but there are NO instructions WHAT files go WHERE for things to actually work!





The current documentation is located here:

http://www.armresearch.com/support/articles/software/snfServer/config/node/paths/index.jsp

The general design is such that log files will be written into the log path, the rulebase file will be read from the rulebase path, and the remaining files should reside in the workspace path.

I will add a task to clarify this in our documentation and provide more detail.








I found it annoying that further down in the same XML File was yet another path that was NOT included in the paths node in the top of the XML file:

 update-script on-off='on' call='D:/IMail/declude/SNF/getRulebase.cmd' guard-time='180'/





The configuration file is organized by function. The top of the configuration file and in particular the paths/ section is concerned with describing the architecture of the SNFServer installation.

The update-script/ feature is a component of the networking section because it is triggered by SNF network operations, so we put it's configuration information in that section.

This feature is still evolving -- in it's original design it was presumed that the update script would reside in the single SNF directory, or perhaps in the workspace directory -- so only the name of the script would be required in this location. We actually have had quite a few successful installations this way.

However, along the way we've determined that the update script might be located anywhere on the system and that we could not always assume the current workspace for SNFServer indicated the location (or even a relative location) for the udpate script.

To prevent errors we've taken to coding the full path to the script in this section of the configuration.

Another part of the thinking on this is that the update-script feature is completely optional. In fact many of the larger systems that we service use entirely separate update mechanisms and turn this feature off. It seemed to make more sense to put the script path closer to the network features that trigger it.








Next I had to customize the getRuleBase.cmd  because it too does NOT support the use of the rulebase/workspace paths. Here was yet ANOTHER place where I had to manually configure the same path information again, as well as the license key. Needless to say, Im not a friend of having redundant path information in several locations as this is an unnecessary source of error.





This is an unfortunate, but necessary 

[sniffer] Re: Sniffer 3.0 Installed

2008-10-04 Thread Pete McNeil




Hello Andy,

Saturday, October 4, 2008, 12:28:44 PM, you wrote:







HI Pete,
Thanks for your feedback.
I had to create the UpdateReady.txt file before I was able to test my update script from the command line  but I didnt realize that I would be created in the Workspace folder. Without that information, one cannot adapt the update script to ones needs.
Since the server always creates UpdateReady file in the Workspace folder and always expects the .SNF file in the Rulebase folder, its pretty safe to say that anyone using the getRuleBase.cmd would absolutely have to add the Workspace and Rulebase paths  otherwise they cant possibly find the UpdateReady file and the script will just exit OR it will not place the SNF File where the server will find it. Anyone who has their own update mechanism clearly doesnt fall under this discussion at all. My conclusion is, that the current getRuleBase.cmd only handles the case when there are no separate directories  but the with the changes I made, the getRuleBase.cmd would allow a user to define separate directories at the top of the script (if thats how they configured things) and thus correctly handle a SINGLE as well as separate directories. In my opinion, that is the more correct behavior.





I'm still trying to think of a way to describe this modification so that it makes sense without causing lots of confusion.

Since we're trying to reach a larger audience these days we've created a generalized approach and built an installer that configures SNF, Declude, mxGuard, and MINIMI on IMail, SmarterMail, and even a "generic" (roll your own) configuration.

The installer performs upgrades from the previous version as well.

The idea is that more folks won't have to do any tweaking at all.

Your proposed getRulebase works great for your structure-- and I agree it's a nice idea to have a WORKSPACE_PATH and RULEBASE_PATH variable.. BUT I'm having a hard time figuring out a way to include those and their various options without adding a lot of confusion and complexity...

The existing getRulebase script works perfectly when used with the installer and nobody has to touch it.

My best thinking at the moment is to perhaps do something like this:




REM - Edit This Section -

SET LICENSE_ID=licenseid
SET AUTHENTICATION=authenticationxx
SET SNIFFER_PATH=D:\IMail\declude\SNF

REM Modify the next two lines if you modify SNF's directory structure.

SET RULEBASE_PATH=%SNIFFER_PATH%
SET WORKSPACE_PATH=%SNIFFER_PATH%

REM -





Of course doing that would mean rewriting our installer too (Since it needs to modify/generate the getRulebase script.

For the immediate future this discussion is archived and searchable and I will add a task to the web site project to describe some of these getRulebase.cmd scenarios.

How does that sound?

_M

--
Pete McNeil
Chief Scientist,
Arm Research Labs, LLC.



#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list sniffer@sortmonster.com.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send administrative queries to  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[sniffer] Re: Sniffer 3.0 Installed

2008-10-04 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi Pete,

 My best thinking at the moment is to perhaps do something like this 

Right, exactly. As long as the parameters are already there to be modified
and the script uses those parameters, then the script is ready to go for any
user (with or without distinct directories).

 Of course doing that would mean rewriting our installer too (Since it
needs to modify/generate the getRulebase script. 

Yes, if you want the installer to handle the subdirectory layout, then it
would have to adapt the additional two lines in the getRulesbase script -
which would make it more flexible to deal with different customer scenarios.

Best Regards,
Andy

 

From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 3:52 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer] Re: Sniffer 3.0 Installed

 

My best thinking at the moment is to perhaps do something like this:

 


REM - Edit This Section
-

 

SET LICENSE_ID=licenseid

SET AUTHENTICATION=authenticationxx

SET SNIFFER_PATH=D:\IMail\declude\SNF

 

REM Modify the next two lines if you modify SNF's directory structure.

 

SET RULEBASE_PATH=%SNIFFER_PATH%

SET WORKSPACE_PATH=%SNIFFER_PATH%

 

REM

-

 

Of course doing that would mean rewriting our installer too (Since it needs
to modify/generate the getRulebase script.

 

For the immediate future this discussion is archived and searchable and I
will add a task to the web site project to describe some of these
getRulebase.cmd scenarios.

 

How does that sound?

 

_M