Hello Darin, Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 5:14:02 PM, you wrote:
> > > Oh, I assumed the rule had been removed. Are you saying there was > a rule in place, but the FP processing somehow failed to find it? > If so, I'd say that is a major failing on the part of the FP processing. > > > > There's no way that we can find time to go through the Sniffer > logs after this bounces back with "no rule found". This would have > to be automated to have any chance of occurring, but again I would > say the FP processing needs to be corrected to identify the rule the > message failed since the complete message, headers and body, are included in > the report. Unfortunately, by the time the message gets to us it is sometimes just different enough that the original pattern cannot be found. There are some folks who consistently have success, and some who occasionally have problems, and a few who always have a problem. The best solution is to include the headers during the scan since they will travel with the message. The next best is to automate matching the log entries with the message so they can be included with the submission (some do this to prevent the "second trip"). _M -- Pete McNeil Chief Scientist, Arm Research Labs, LLC. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[email protected]>. 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]>
