It's a glitch! I still haven't heard from the person who did it. I can't find a way to rollback the php code. I'm sick as a dog today, and the medication ain't helping me solve this problem. Once I can find a way to get SARE back on track, and I feel better, we can talk abuot tweaking it to our hearts content.
Right now I want it working, then I want a nap, and possibly a hug. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Cirelle Enterprises [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:26 PM >To: Ryan Thompson >Cc: Chris Santerre; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Rules Download question > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ryan Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >| I'm 99% sure wget doesn't support that, or 304 replies >(probably since >| it has no real concept of the local filesystem :-), but it'd >be pretty >| trivial to implement with other tools/libraries not nearly >as bulky as >| rsync. > >whatever > >but the most recent changes makes the files look new everytime >and downloads them all with a restart of SA > >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_oem.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_random.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_spoof.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_genlsubj0.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_genlsubj1.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_genlsubj2.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_genlsubj3.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_specific.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/71_sare_redirect_pre3.0.0.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/72_sare_bml_post25x.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/evilnumbers.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/coding_html.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/header_abuse.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_adult.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_biz_market_learn_post25x.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_sare_fraud_post25x.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/bogus-virus-warnings.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/weeds_2.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/88_FVGT_Bayes_Poison.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/88_FVGT_body.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/88_FVGT_rawbody.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/88_FVGT_subject.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/88_FVGT_headers.cf >http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/88_FVGT_uri.cf > >My point is why go through the complete download if you don't have to >and why does SA have to restart every time since (in reality) >no changes >have occurred. > >God forbid if you change the download schedule and it is 22 >hours and not >24 hours, all your cf files look like: > ><H1>Rate limiting in effect</H1> >Your request could not be processed because you have exceeded >the maximum request rate for the requested document. This is >a temporary condition; you will be permitted to submit another >request in a few hours. > ><BR><BR>To avoid triggering the rate limiter in future, please >make less frequent requests for this document. You should not >request the same document more than once every 24 hours. >Please also note that continuing to re-request the document >while rate limiting is in effect will further increase the >amount of time before the file becomes available to you again. > > >What's up with that? > >What about FTP, that has to be more efficient than http > >Regards >Greg > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ryan Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Cirelle Enterprises" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:35 PM >Subject: Re: Rules Download question > > >| Cirelle Enterprises wrote to Chris Santerre: >| >| > Chris, >| > >| > Why aren't you running rsync for the rules. >| > >| > That would cut down on bandwidth because if the rule >| > didn't change, no download and is much better than the wget >| >| HTTP would do a good job of this itself, if RDJ took advantage of the >| If-Modified-Since request-header field, significant >bandwidth could be >| saved. >| >| I'm 99% sure wget doesn't support that, or 304 replies >(probably since >| it has no real concept of the local filesystem :-), but it'd >be pretty >| trivial to implement with other tools/libraries not nearly >as bulky as >| rsync. >| >| rsync is better for large hierarchies of many files. Using >it to update >| a dozen or so files would be overkill, IMO. rsync is also >quite resource >| intensive on server and client side. >| >| Chris, if you want, I can look at reworking RDJ to take advantage of >| If-Modified-Since, as long as it is (relatively) safe to >assume that the >| modified dates change IFF there are new versions of each ruleset. >| >| All of the PARSE_NEW_VER_SCRIPTS stuff could still be preserved, I >| suppose. >| >| - Ryan >| >| -- >| Ryan Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >| >| SaskNow Technologies - http://www.sasknow.com >| 901-1st Avenue North - Saskatoon, SK - S7K 1Y4 >| >| Tel: 306-664-3600 Fax: 306-244-7037 Saskatoon >| Toll-Free: 877-727-5669 (877-SASKNOW) North America >
