On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:22:40 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann
wrote:
>On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 12:58 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>> Unrelated but reminded me I hadn't posted a thanks to all those that
>> responded about the sa-update rules. That's partly because I'm
>> awaiting permission from clients to
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 12:58 +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Unrelated but reminded me I hadn't posted a thanks to all those that
> responded about the sa-update rules. That's partly because I'm
> awaiting permission from clients to add their mails to the corpus.
Unrelated indeed. ;) That short ran
Unrelated but reminded me I hadn't posted a thanks to all those that
responded about the sa-update rules. That's partly because I'm
awaiting permission from clients to add their mails to the corpus.
So, thanks all. Apologies for forgetting my manners.
Have no clue about Spear Phishing other than
On 3/16/11 11:50 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
Karsten, thanks for pointing out that this is the same guy. I had
missed that.
Warren
Ditto. I was about to tell him how to stop spear phishing.
thanks.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
ISN: 1259*1300
>*| *SECNAP N
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 17:50 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> Karsten, thanks for pointing out that this is the same guy. I had
> missed that.
Heh, you're welcome -- though that would be referring to my other reply
to this (sub-) thread. ;)
Sometimes it helps to identify patterns. Sometimes it
On 3/16/2011 5:45 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 20:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote:
Probably I need to participate on nightly checks to improve phish and
lower false positives.
More masscheck participants are always welcome!
No.
Th
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 20:30 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote:
> > Probably I need to participate on nightly checks to improve phish and
> > lower false positives.
>
> More masscheck participants are always welcome!
No.
There is this thing called trust. Credibili
So this actually is a reply to the last post to your previous thread
"how to disable network tests". Merely changing the subject and pruning
the quote from the body -- surprise -- does NOT make it a new thread. On
the up-side, it appears you at least did read (I mean "keep" here) the
thread. Encour
On 3/16/2011 4:08 PM, Hamad Ali wrote:
Hi folks -- wondering if anyone has monitored SA's performance against
phishing mails. SA is able to detect 86% of phishing emails my clients
get, with 0.5% false positives on all the ham. It seems non-phish-SPAM
is easier to be detected than phish (~99% for
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Hamad Ali wrote:
Hi folks -- wondering if anyone has monitored SA's performance against
phishing mails. SA is able to detect 86% of phishing emails my clients
get, with 0.5% false positives on all the ham. It seems non-phish-SPAM
is easier to be detected than phish (~99% f
Hi folks -- wondering if anyone has monitored SA's performance against
phishing mails. SA is able to detect 86% of phishing emails my clients get,
with 0.5% false positives on all the ham. It seems non-phish-SPAM is easier to
be detected than phish (~99% for non-phish spam). Probably I need to
11 matches
Mail list logo
