[sniffer] Sniffer Updates every 6 or 7 minutes

[Rory Nimmo]

Hi folks.

My Sniffer rule base is updating every 6 or 7 minutes today. I have not made 
any changes at my end. Can you shed any light on this please?

License number is X13Z5DKL

Regards
Rory Nimmo
Technical Director
+64 4 474 8797
 ___
[cid:image001.gif@01CA5C86.38A06810]
Professional web development and hosting services
Level 6,
142 Lambton Quay,
PO Box 5028,
Wellington,
New Zealand
P 0800 2 UNITY (0800 286 489)
F +64 4 474-8793
W www.unity.net.nz
E i...@unity.net.nz

<>

Re: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?

[Pete McNeil]

Hello John,

Friday, June 2, 2006, 5:22:45 PM, you wrote:

> I am getting errors since late last night that host can not be found.

I checked your license record and finding no problems successfully
downloaded your rulebase file from the expected URL.

Not sure what could be going on but it seems it must be local based on
what I've seen so far.

_M


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


#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>

Re: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?

[John T (Lists)]

Well, I figured out what the problem is, sort of.

This last Monday I finally reconfigured the network at my Data Center for
using 2 Internet connections. 

For some reason, DNS queries going out the secondary connection are timing
out.

Fun Fun Fun.

John T
eServices For You

"Seek, and ye shall find!"


> -Original Message-
> From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Goran Jovanovic
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:57 PM
> To: Message Sniffer Community
> Subject: Re: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I got my Sniffer update at 5:03 pm no problem from Toronto
> 
> Goran Jovanovic
> Omega Network Solutions
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John T (Lists)
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 5:23 PM
> To: Message Sniffer Community
> Subject: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?
> 
> I am getting errors since late last night that host can not be found.
> 
> John T
> eServices For You
> 
> "Seek, and ye shall find!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #
> 
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list .
> 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]>
> 
> 
> 
> #
> 
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list .
> 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]>




#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>

Re: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?

[Goran Jovanovic]

Hi John,

I got my Sniffer update at 5:03 pm no problem from Toronto

Goran Jovanovic
Omega Network Solutions

-Original Message-
From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John T (Lists)
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 5:23 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?

I am getting errors since late last night that host can not be found.

John T
eServices For You

"Seek, and ye shall find!"




#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>



#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>

Re: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?

[Shaun Sturby, MCSE Optrics Engineering]

Connecting to www.sortmonster.net[207.97.229.114]:80... connected.

As of 1 minute ago.

 Shaun Sturby, MCSE
 Manager - Technical Services

 Optrics Engineering - Solution Partners & Network Specialists
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Website: www.Optrics.com
 United States:  1740 S 300 West #10 Clearfield, UT, 84015
 Phone: 1-877-430-6240  Fax: (801) 705-3150
 Canada: 6810 104 St. Edmonton, AB Canada T6H 2L6
 Phone: 1-877-463-7638  Fax: (780) 432-5630
 Optrics Engineering and FundSoft are divisions of Optrics Inc. 

-Original Message-
From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of John T (Lists)
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?


I am getting errors since late last night that host can not be found.

John T
eServices For You

"Seek, and ye shall find!"




#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>




#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>

Re: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?

[Chuck Schick]

John:

We are able to download updates fine.  Could be some routing issues.

Chuck Schick
Warp 8, Inc.
(303)-421-5140
www.warp8.com

-Original Message-
From: Message Sniffer Community [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of John T (Lists)
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Message Sniffer Community
Subject: [sniffer]Sniffer updates down?


I am getting errors since late last night that host can not be found.

John T
eServices For You

"Seek, and ye shall find!"




#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>




#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]Sniffer updates down?

[John T (Lists)]

I am getting errors since late last night that host can not be found.

John T
eServices For You

"Seek, and ye shall find!"




#
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
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]>

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates-- am I missing something

[Pete McNeil]

On Monday, December 27, 2004, 7:01:06 PM, Woody wrote:

WGF> What am I missing in this thread? 
  
WGF>  
  
WGF> I use an Imail “program alias” that automatically runs a
WGF> download script when I am notified by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WGF> when a new rule base is available; therefore only a validation
WGF> needs to be preformed.

This is correct. The initial script was intended to be triggered by an
update notification so there would always be a new rulebase available
in that case. While checking for a new rulebase in the script makes it
more robust, it is not strictly required if the script will be
triggered by an update notification.

WGF>  I took this procedure from this list, so I know it must be
WGF> common knowledge. What advantage is there to a scheduled or
WGF> manual rule base update that requires conditional test? It seems
WGF> to me that I have no need to check for rule base updates until I
WGF> have been advised by support that one is available.

WGF>  
  
WGF> Will there ever be a rule base update available before I have been 
notified?

There should never be an update available unless you have received
an update notification.

That said, if you ever want to run your script manually it might make
good sense to upgrade it to check for a newer file.

_M




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

[sniffer] Sniffer Updates-- am I missing something

[Woody G Fussell]

What am I missing in this thread? 

 

I use an Imail “program alias” that
automatically runs a download script when I am notified by [EMAIL PROTECTED] when a new
rule base is available; therefore only a validation needs to be preformed.

 

 I took this procedure from this list, so I know it
must be common knowledge. What advantage is there to a scheduled or manual rule
base update that requires conditional test? It seems to me that I have no need
to check for rule base updates until I have been advised by support that one is
available.

 

Will there ever be a rule base update available before I have
been notified?

 

Woody Fussell

Wilbur Smith Associates

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Michiel Prins]

Title: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates



I made this one, which is probably also somewhere on the 
sniffer site. Change directories and keys for your use:



d:
cd\Batch Files\Sniffer
 
wget http://sniffer:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/Sniffer/Updates/.snf -O .snf.gz --timestamping 
--header=Accept-Encoding:gzip
 
gzip -d -f .snf.gz
 
:Check
fcom32 "c:\mdaemon\sniffer\.snf" "d:\batch 
files\sniffer\.snf"
if errorlevel 1 goto Test
goto :Done
 
:Test
snf2check.exe .snf 

if errorlevel 1 goto Done
 
copy /y .snf 
c:\mdaemon\sniffer
copy /y .snf .old
 
:Done


 
Check for wrapping by 
your e-mail client! I've put an empty line between every line, to make sure you 
see what belongs together. Next to the --timestaping feature of wget, I also use 
fcom32.exe to see if the file is really different than the one before. This 
example also uses gzip!
 
Greets,
Michiel



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim 
MatuskaSent: maandag 27 december 2004 19:51To: 
sniffer@SortMonster.comSubject: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer 
Updates

Does anyone have any good instructions on how to 
modify your update scripts to use gzip?  
 
Jim Matuska Jr.Computer Tech2, CCNANez 
Perce TribeInformation Systems[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom Baker | 
  Netsmith Inc 
  To: sniffer@SortMonster.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:43 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  Updates
  
  Automate harassment reminders to those of us not using it. 
  :)I think I'll go enable gzip tonight-Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  Landry William <sniffer@SortMonster.com>Sent: 
  Mon Dec 27 12:36:06 2004Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  UpdatesOn Monday, December 27, 2004, 12:46:19 PM, Landry 
  wrote:LW> Are folks taking advantage of the "wget" compression 
  option beforeLW> downloading their rulebase updates?  If the slow 
  download speeds are aLW> bandwidth saturation issue on the Sniffer end, 
  this would certainly cut downLW> on the bandwidth requirements on their 
  end and increase the download timesLW> for everyone.LW> 
  Also, I've got to ask, if the downloads are happening "behind the 
  scenes",LW> by an automated or triggered download, why the concern 
  about speeds, as longLW> as your downloads are 
  successful?>From what I've seen in the logs, only about 5% of folks 
  are takingadvantage of gzip right now.Also, I did some 
  incantations on the log (grep, awk, uniq etc) andcame up with just under 
  half of our customers downloading theirrulebase between 1200 and 1300 
  today. That's between 2 and 3 times asmany as should have done it ;-) -- 
  so the backlog is explainable.This kind of thing happens for lots of 
  reasons and there are a lot ofways to mitigate the problem.A big 
  one on the list - certainly - is using the gzip capability. Withonly 5% of 
  folks using this and average compression ratios well above50% there is 
  plenty of room to "make a big dent" in this._MThis 
  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

Re[4]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Pete McNeil]

On Monday, December 27, 2004, 1:51:11 PM, Jim wrote:

JM> Does anyone have any good instructions on how to  modify your update 
scripts to use gzip? 

This is a good place to start:

http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/gzip.html

_M




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

RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Landry William]

Title: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates



See http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/AutomatingUpdatesHelp.html for
some sample scripts.
 
Bill

  -Original Message-From: Jim Matuska
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:51
  AMTo: sniffer@SortMonster.comSubject: Re: Re[2]:
  [sniffer] Sniffer Updates
  Does anyone have any good instructions on how to
  modify your update scripts to use gzip?  
   
  Jim Matuska Jr.Computer Tech2, CCNANez
  Perce TribeInformation Systems[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
- Original Message - 
From:
Tom Baker |
Netsmith Inc 
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com 
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:43
AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer
Updates

Automate harassment reminders to those of us not using it.
:)I think I'll go enable gzip
tonight-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
Landry William <sniffer@SortMonster.com>Sent:
Mon Dec 27 12:36:06 2004Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer
UpdatesOn Monday, December 27, 2004, 12:46:19 PM, Landry
wrote:LW> Are folks taking advantage of the "wget"
compression option beforeLW> downloading their rulebase
updates?  If the slow download speeds are aLW> bandwidth
saturation issue on the Sniffer end, this would certainly cut downLW>
on the bandwidth requirements on their end and increase the download
timesLW> for everyone.LW> Also, I've got to ask, if the
downloads are happening "behind the scenes",LW> by an automated or
triggered download, why the concern about speeds, as longLW> as your
downloads are successful?>From what I've seen in the logs, only
about 5% of folks are takingadvantage of gzip right now.Also, I
did some incantations on the log (grep, awk, uniq etc) andcame up with
just under half of our customers downloading theirrulebase between 1200
and 1300 today. That's between 2 and 3 times asmany as should have done
it ;-) -- so the backlog is explainable.This kind of thing happens
for lots of reasons and there are a lot ofways to mitigate the
problem.A big one on the list - certainly - is using the gzip
capability. Withonly 5% of folks using this and average compression
ratios well above50% there is plenty of room to "make a big dent" in
this._MThis 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

---This message and any included attachments are from Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. and are intended only for the addressee(s).  The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise confidential information.  Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender by e-mail with a copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you

Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Jim Matuska]

Title: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates



Does anyone have any good instructions on how to 
modify your update scripts to use gzip?  
 
Jim Matuska Jr.Computer Tech2, CCNANez 
Perce TribeInformation Systems[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom Baker | 
  Netsmith Inc 
  To: sniffer@SortMonster.com 
  Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:43 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  Updates
  
  Automate harassment reminders to those of us not using it. 
  :)I think I'll go enable gzip tonight-Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  Landry William <sniffer@SortMonster.com>Sent: 
  Mon Dec 27 12:36:06 2004Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  UpdatesOn Monday, December 27, 2004, 12:46:19 PM, Landry 
  wrote:LW> Are folks taking advantage of the "wget" compression 
  option beforeLW> downloading their rulebase updates?  If the slow 
  download speeds are aLW> bandwidth saturation issue on the Sniffer end, 
  this would certainly cut downLW> on the bandwidth requirements on their 
  end and increase the download timesLW> for everyone.LW> 
  Also, I've got to ask, if the downloads are happening "behind the 
  scenes",LW> by an automated or triggered download, why the concern 
  about speeds, as longLW> as your downloads are 
  successful?>From what I've seen in the logs, only about 5% of folks 
  are takingadvantage of gzip right now.Also, I did some 
  incantations on the log (grep, awk, uniq etc) andcame up with just under 
  half of our customers downloading theirrulebase between 1200 and 1300 
  today. That's between 2 and 3 times asmany as should have done it ;-) -- 
  so the backlog is explainable.This kind of thing happens for lots of 
  reasons and there are a lot ofways to mitigate the problem.A big 
  one on the list - certainly - is using the gzip capability. Withonly 5% of 
  folks using this and average compression ratios well above50% there is 
  plenty of room to "make a big dent" in this._MThis 
  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

Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Tom Baker | Netsmith Inc]

Title: Re: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates






Automate harassment reminders to those of us not using it. :)

I think I'll go enable gzip tonight




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Landry William 
Sent: Mon Dec 27 12:36:06 2004
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

On Monday, December 27, 2004, 12:46:19 PM, Landry wrote:


LW> Are folks taking advantage of the "wget" compression option before
LW> downloading their rulebase updates?  If the slow download speeds are a
LW> bandwidth saturation issue on the Sniffer end, this would certainly cut down
LW> on the bandwidth requirements on their end and increase the download times
LW> for everyone.

LW> Also, I've got to ask, if the downloads are happening "behind the scenes",
LW> by an automated or triggered download, why the concern about speeds, as long
LW> as your downloads are successful?

>From what I've seen in the logs, only about 5% of folks are taking
advantage of gzip right now.

Also, I did some incantations on the log (grep, awk, uniq etc) and
came up with just under half of our customers downloading their
rulebase between 1200 and 1300 today. That's between 2 and 3 times as
many as should have done it ;-) -- so the backlog is explainable.

This kind of thing happens for lots of reasons and there are a lot of
ways to mitigate the problem.

A big one on the list - certainly - is using the gzip capability. With
only 5% of folks using this and average compression ratios well above
50% there is plenty of room to "make a big dent" in this.

_M




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

Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Pete McNeil]

On Monday, December 27, 2004, 12:46:19 PM, Landry wrote:


LW> Are folks taking advantage of the "wget" compression option before
LW> downloading their rulebase updates?  If the slow download speeds are a
LW> bandwidth saturation issue on the Sniffer end, this would certainly cut down
LW> on the bandwidth requirements on their end and increase the download times
LW> for everyone.

LW> Also, I've got to ask, if the downloads are happening "behind the scenes",
LW> by an automated or triggered download, why the concern about speeds, as long
LW> as your downloads are successful?

From what I've seen in the logs, only about 5% of folks are taking
advantage of gzip right now.

Also, I did some incantations on the log (grep, awk, uniq etc) and
came up with just under half of our customers downloading their
rulebase between 1200 and 1300 today. That's between 2 and 3 times as
many as should have done it ;-) -- so the backlog is explainable.

This kind of thing happens for lots of reasons and there are a lot of
ways to mitigate the problem.

A big one on the list - certainly - is using the gzip capability. With
only 5% of folks using this and average compression ratios well above
50% there is plenty of room to "make a big dent" in this.

_M




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

Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Pete McNeil]

On Monday, December 27, 2004, 11:45:59 AM, Russ wrote:

RU> Kevin Stanford wrote:
>> Our updates seem to be taking a very long time. I am 85% updated and the
>> ETA shows 07:00. Is it me?

RU> I see stuff like this come and go...  Our updates are (finally) 
RU> triggered from the email notifications...  Below is a snippet of the
RU> last update that shows exactly what speeds we saw, which ran at 10:45
RU> EST this morning...  Every once in a while, I will see it slow down to
RU> about 8KB/s, but rarely slower than that...

There are going to be random events like this for a while - as long as
some folks still download based on a schedule rather than responding
to update notifications.

What happens is that sometimes a group of systems will "agree" to all
download their rulebase files at the same time - when that happens our
bandwidth gets saturated and things go slowly. (We are working on
this in a number of ways.)

Most of the time there is plenty of bandwidth, and if everyone always
downloaded only when there was an update notification then there would
always be plenty (our system paces updates to make sure this is the
case as much as possible).

We are in a transitional period where existing connectivity contracts
prevent us from moving without incurring a significant cost (a cost we
would rather not pass on to our customers). Over the next 6-9 months
we will make the transition to a new rulebase format and distribution
method and we will also be migrating to new hosting facilities
(already running in case we encounter a serious DL problem).

Since rulebase downloads should always be automated in some way, the
occasional slow download should not be a problem. We will continue to
monitor the situation closely - and we appreciate the reports we get.

The things that you can do to help are:

1. If you haven't already, please upgrade your scripting so that your
automated downloads are triggered from our update notifications.

2. If you are not going to use update notifications please be sure to
use the staggered schedule we've posted here:

http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/LogsHelp.html#When

3. AVOID using accelerated download software! This is the kind of
software that downloads large files by opening multiple connections to
the same server. Almost all of the "slowdowns" we experience have been
associated with someone downloading a rulebase with this kind of
software -- they open 100+ connections for themselves (sometimes more)
and that slows things down for everyone else. We have adjusted our
server's setting to mitigate this, but we can't turn it off completely
without causing other performance problems ;-)

Hope this helps,
_M




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

RE: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Landry William]

Are folks taking advantage of the "wget" compression option before
downloading their rulebase updates?  If the slow download speeds are a
bandwidth saturation issue on the Sniffer end, this would certainly cut down
on the bandwidth requirements on their end and increase the download times
for everyone.

Also, I've got to ask, if the downloads are happening "behind the scenes",
by an automated or triggered download, why the concern about speeds, as long
as your downloads are successful?

Bill

-Original Message-
From: Jim Matuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:22 AM
To: sniffer@SortMonster.com
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates


I too am seeing really slow speeds, I'm running an update now and it is only

downloading at about 3k/sec.  Pretty bad considering we have 2 T1's and a 
DS3 none of which have much traffic on them this morning.

Jim Matuska Jr.
Computer Tech2, CCNA
Nez Perce Tribe
Information Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "Russ Uhte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates


> Kevin Stanford wrote:
>> Our updates seem to be taking a very long time. I am 85% updated and 
>> the
>> ETA shows 07:00. Is it me?
>
> I see stuff like this come and go...  Our updates are (finally) 
> triggered
> from the email notifications...  Below is a snippet of the last update 
> that shows exactly what speeds we saw, which ran at 10:45 EST this 
> morning...  Every once in a while, I will see it slow down to about 8KB/s,

> but rarely slower than that...
>
> Thanks,
> Russ
>
> (This will probably wrap and look real ugly, but the last number is 
> the
> average download speed for that part of the download...)
>
>
> 0K .. .. .. .. ..  0% 
> 110.38
> KB/s
>50K .. .. .. .. ..  1% 160.26 
> KB/s
>   100K .. .. .. .. ..  2% 71.12 
> KB/s
>   150K .. .. .. .. ..  3% 110.13 
> KB/s
>   200K .. .. .. .. ..  4% 118.76 
> KB/s
>   250K .. .. .. .. ..  5% 145.35 
> KB/s
>   300K .. .. .. .. ..  6% 168.35 
> KB/s
>   350K .. .. .. .. ..  7% 168.35 
> KB/s
>   400K .. .. .. .. ..  8% 168.35 
> KB/s
>   450K .. .. .. .. ..  9% 160.26 
> KB/s
>   500K .. .. .. .. .. 10% 159.74 
> KB/s
>   550K .. .. .. .. .. 11% 188.68 
> KB/s
>   600K .. .. .. .. .. 12% 177.30 
> KB/s
>   650K .. .. .. .. .. 13% 168.35 
> KB/s
>   700K .. .. .. .. .. 14% 177.94 
> KB/s
>   750K .. .. .. .. .. 15% 168.35 
> KB/s
>   800K .. .. .. .. .. 16% 177.94 
> KB/s
>   850K .. .. .. .. .. 17% 168.35 
> KB/s
>   900K .. .. .. .. .. 18% 168.35 
> KB/s
>   950K .. .. .. .. .. 19% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1000K .. .. .. .. .. 20% 168.92 
> KB/s
>  1050K .. .. .. .. .. 21% 159.74 
> KB/s
>  1100K .. .. .. .. .. 22% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1150K .. .. .. .. .. 23% 177.94 
> KB/s
>  1200K .. .. .. .. .. 24% 177.94 
> KB/s
>  1250K .. .. .. .. .. 25% 159.74 
> KB/s
>  1300K .. .. .. .. .. 26% 177.94 
> KB/s
>  1350K .. .. .. .. .. 27% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1400K .. .. .. .. .. 28% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1450K .. .. .. .. .. 29% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1500K .. .. .. .. .. 30% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1550K .. .. .. .. .. 31% 177.94 
> KB/s
>  1600K .. .. .. .. .. 32% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1650K .. .. .. .. .. 33% 168.35 
> KB/s
>  1700K .. .. .. .. .. 34% 168.92 

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Jim Matuska]

It's actually getting worse now with a timed out 
transfer and now under 1k a sec:
 
Resolving www.sortmonster.net... 
done.Connecting to www.sortmonster.net[216.88.37.61]:80... connected.HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 
OKLength: 11,104,576 [application/x-sortmonster]
 
19% 
[==>  
] 2,141,361  
2.99K/s    ETA 48:46
 
09:29:12 (2.99 KB/s) - Connection closed at 
byte 2141361. Retrying.
 
Connecting to www.sortmonster.net[216.88.37.61]:80... connected.HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 
OKLength: 11,104,576 [application/x-sortmonster]
 
 0% 
[ 
] 87,921   993.81B/s  
ETA 3:04:45
 
 
 
Jim Matuska Jr.Computer Tech2, CCNANez 
Perce TribeInformation Systems[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Matuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <sniffer@SortMonster.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:22 
AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer 
Updates
>I too am seeing really slow speeds, I'm running an update now and it 
is only > downloading at about 3k/sec.  Pretty bad considering we 
have 2 T1's and a > DS3 none of which have much traffic on them this 
morning.> > Jim Matuska Jr.> Computer Tech2, CCNA> 
Nez Perce Tribe> Information Systems> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 
Original Message - > From: "Russ Uhte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: 
<sniffer@SortMonster.com>> 
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:45 AM> Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer 
Updates> > >> Kevin Stanford wrote:>>> Our 
updates seem to be taking a very long time. I am 85% updated and the 
>>> ETA shows 07:00. Is it me?>>>> I see stuff 
like this come and go...  Our updates are (finally) triggered >> 
from the email notifications...  Below is a snippet of the last update 
>> that shows exactly what speeds we saw, which ran at 10:45 EST this 
>> morning...  Every once in a while, I will see it slow down to 
about 8KB/s, >> but rarely slower than that...>>>> 
Thanks,>> Russ>>>> (This will probably wrap and 
look real ugly, but the last number is the >> average download speed 
for that part of the 
download...)>>>>>> 0K 
.. .. .. .. ..  0% 110.38 
>> KB/s>>    50K .. .. 
.. .. ..  1% 160.26 >> 
KB/s>>   100K .. .. .. .. 
..  2% 71.12 >> KB/s>>   150K 
.. .. .. .. ..  3% 110.13 
>> KB/s>>   200K .. .. .. 
.. ..  4% 118.76 >> KB/s>>   
250K .. .. .. .. ..  5% 145.35 
>> KB/s>>   300K .. .. .. 
.. ..  6% 168.35 >> KB/s>>   
350K .. .. .. .. ..  7% 168.35 
>> KB/s>>   400K .. .. .. 
.. ..  8% 168.35 >> KB/s>>   
450K .. .. .. .. ..  9% 160.26 
>> KB/s>>   500K .. .. .. 
.. .. 10% 159.74 >> KB/s>>   550K 
.. .. .. .. .. 11% 188.68 >> 
KB/s>>   600K .. .. .. .. 
.. 12% 177.30 >> KB/s>>   650K .. 
.. .. .. .. 13% 168.35 >> 
KB/s>>   700K .. .. .. .. 
.. 14% 177.94 >> KB/s>>   750K .. 
.. .. .. .. 15% 168.35 >> 
KB/s>>   800K .. .. .. .. 
.. 16% 177.94 >> KB/s>>   850K .. 
.. .. .. .. 17% 168.35 >> 
KB/s>>   900K .. .. .. .. 
.. 18% 168.35 >> KB/s>>   950K .. 
.. .. .. .. 19% 168.35 >> 
KB/s>>  1000K .. .. .. .. 
.. 20% 168.92 >> KB/s>>  1050K .. 
.. .. .. .. 21% 159.74 >> 
KB/s>>  1100K .. .. .. .. 
.. 22% 168.35 >> KB/s>>  1150K .. 
.. .. .. .. 23% 177.94 >> 
KB/s>>  1200K .. .. .. .. 
.. 24% 177.94 >> KB/s>>  1250K .. 
.. .. .. .. 25% 159.74 >> 
KB/s>>  1300K .. .. .. .. 
.. 26% 177.94 >> KB/s>>  1350K .. 
.. .. .

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Jim Matuska]

I too am seeing really slow speeds, I'm running an update now and it is only 
downloading at about 3k/sec.  Pretty bad considering we have 2 T1's and a 
DS3 none of which have much traffic on them this morning.

Jim Matuska Jr.
Computer Tech2, CCNA
Nez Perce Tribe
Information Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message - 
From: "Russ Uhte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates


Kevin Stanford wrote:
Our updates seem to be taking a very long time. I am 85% updated and the 
ETA shows 07:00. Is it me?
I see stuff like this come and go...  Our updates are (finally) triggered 
from the email notifications...  Below is a snippet of the last update 
that shows exactly what speeds we saw, which ran at 10:45 EST this 
morning...  Every once in a while, I will see it slow down to about 8KB/s, 
but rarely slower than that...

Thanks,
Russ
(This will probably wrap and look real ugly, but the last number is the 
average download speed for that part of the download...)

0K .. .. .. .. ..  0% 110.38 
KB/s
   50K .. .. .. .. ..  1% 160.26 
KB/s
  100K .. .. .. .. ..  2% 71.12 
KB/s
  150K .. .. .. .. ..  3% 110.13 
KB/s
  200K .. .. .. .. ..  4% 118.76 
KB/s
  250K .. .. .. .. ..  5% 145.35 
KB/s
  300K .. .. .. .. ..  6% 168.35 
KB/s
  350K .. .. .. .. ..  7% 168.35 
KB/s
  400K .. .. .. .. ..  8% 168.35 
KB/s
  450K .. .. .. .. ..  9% 160.26 
KB/s
  500K .. .. .. .. .. 10% 159.74 
KB/s
  550K .. .. .. .. .. 11% 188.68 
KB/s
  600K .. .. .. .. .. 12% 177.30 
KB/s
  650K .. .. .. .. .. 13% 168.35 
KB/s
  700K .. .. .. .. .. 14% 177.94 
KB/s
  750K .. .. .. .. .. 15% 168.35 
KB/s
  800K .. .. .. .. .. 16% 177.94 
KB/s
  850K .. .. .. .. .. 17% 168.35 
KB/s
  900K .. .. .. .. .. 18% 168.35 
KB/s
  950K .. .. .. .. .. 19% 168.35 
KB/s
 1000K .. .. .. .. .. 20% 168.92 
KB/s
 1050K .. .. .. .. .. 21% 159.74 
KB/s
 1100K .. .. .. .. .. 22% 168.35 
KB/s
 1150K .. .. .. .. .. 23% 177.94 
KB/s
 1200K .. .. .. .. .. 24% 177.94 
KB/s
 1250K .. .. .. .. .. 25% 159.74 
KB/s
 1300K .. .. .. .. .. 26% 177.94 
KB/s
 1350K .. .. .. .. .. 27% 168.35 
KB/s
 1400K .. .. .. .. .. 28% 168.35 
KB/s
 1450K .. .. .. .. .. 29% 168.35 
KB/s
 1500K .. .. .. .. .. 30% 168.35 
KB/s
 1550K .. .. .. .. .. 31% 177.94 
KB/s
 1600K .. .. .. .. .. 32% 168.35 
KB/s
 1650K .. .. .. .. .. 33% 168.35 
KB/s
 1700K .. .. .. .. .. 34% 168.92 
KB/s
 1750K .. .. .. .. .. 35% 168.35 
KB/s
 1800K .. .. .. .. .. 36% 159.74 
KB/s
 1850K .. .. .. .. .. 37% 177.94 
KB/s
 1900K .. .. .. .. .. 38% 91.41 
KB/s
 1950K .. .. .. .. .. 39% 86.51 
KB/s
 2000K .. .. .. .. .. 40% 86.51 
KB/s
 2050K .. .. .. .. .. 41% 81.97 
KB/s
 2100K .. .. .. .. .. 42% 97.09 
KB/s
 2150K .. .. .. .. .. 43% 86.51 
KB/s
 2200K .. .. .. .. .. 44% 81.97 
KB/s
 2250K .. .. .. .. .. 45% 61.58 
KB/s
 2300K .. .. .. .. .. 46% 60.39 
KB/s
 2350K .. .. .. .. .. 47% 40.00 
KB/s
 2400K .. .. .. .. .. 48% 159.74 
KB/s
 2450K .. .. .. .. ...

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Russ Uhte]

Kevin Stanford wrote:
Our updates seem to be taking a very long time. I am 85% updated and the 
ETA shows 07:00. Is it me?
I see stuff like this come and go...  Our updates are (finally) 
triggered from the email notifications...  Below is a snippet of the 
last update that shows exactly what speeds we saw, which ran at 10:45 
EST this morning...  Every once in a while, I will see it slow down to 
about 8KB/s, but rarely slower than that...

Thanks,
Russ
(This will probably wrap and look real ugly, but the last number is the 
average download speed for that part of the download...)

0K .. .. .. .. ..  0% 
110.38 KB/s
   50K .. .. .. .. ..  1% 
160.26 KB/s
  100K .. .. .. .. ..  2% 
71.12 KB/s
  150K .. .. .. .. ..  3% 
110.13 KB/s
  200K .. .. .. .. ..  4% 
118.76 KB/s
  250K .. .. .. .. ..  5% 
145.35 KB/s
  300K .. .. .. .. ..  6% 
168.35 KB/s
  350K .. .. .. .. ..  7% 
168.35 KB/s
  400K .. .. .. .. ..  8% 
168.35 KB/s
  450K .. .. .. .. ..  9% 
160.26 KB/s
  500K .. .. .. .. .. 10% 
159.74 KB/s
  550K .. .. .. .. .. 11% 
188.68 KB/s
  600K .. .. .. .. .. 12% 
177.30 KB/s
  650K .. .. .. .. .. 13% 
168.35 KB/s
  700K .. .. .. .. .. 14% 
177.94 KB/s
  750K .. .. .. .. .. 15% 
168.35 KB/s
  800K .. .. .. .. .. 16% 
177.94 KB/s
  850K .. .. .. .. .. 17% 
168.35 KB/s
  900K .. .. .. .. .. 18% 
168.35 KB/s
  950K .. .. .. .. .. 19% 
168.35 KB/s
 1000K .. .. .. .. .. 20% 
168.92 KB/s
 1050K .. .. .. .. .. 21% 
159.74 KB/s
 1100K .. .. .. .. .. 22% 
168.35 KB/s
 1150K .. .. .. .. .. 23% 
177.94 KB/s
 1200K .. .. .. .. .. 24% 
177.94 KB/s
 1250K .. .. .. .. .. 25% 
159.74 KB/s
 1300K .. .. .. .. .. 26% 
177.94 KB/s
 1350K .. .. .. .. .. 27% 
168.35 KB/s
 1400K .. .. .. .. .. 28% 
168.35 KB/s
 1450K .. .. .. .. .. 29% 
168.35 KB/s
 1500K .. .. .. .. .. 30% 
168.35 KB/s
 1550K .. .. .. .. .. 31% 
177.94 KB/s
 1600K .. .. .. .. .. 32% 
168.35 KB/s
 1650K .. .. .. .. .. 33% 
168.35 KB/s
 1700K .. .. .. .. .. 34% 
168.92 KB/s
 1750K .. .. .. .. .. 35% 
168.35 KB/s
 1800K .. .. .. .. .. 36% 
159.74 KB/s
 1850K .. .. .. .. .. 37% 
177.94 KB/s
 1900K .. .. .. .. .. 38% 
91.41 KB/s
 1950K .. .. .. .. .. 39% 
86.51 KB/s
 2000K .. .. .. .. .. 40% 
86.51 KB/s
 2050K .. .. .. .. .. 41% 
81.97 KB/s
 2100K .. .. .. .. .. 42% 
97.09 KB/s
 2150K .. .. .. .. .. 43% 
86.51 KB/s
 2200K .. .. .. .. .. 44% 
81.97 KB/s
 2250K .. .. .. .. .. 45% 
61.58 KB/s
 2300K .. .. .. .. .. 46% 
60.39 KB/s
 2350K .. .. .. .. .. 47% 
40.00 KB/s
 2400K .. .. .. .. .. 48% 
159.74 KB/s
 2450K .. .. .. .. .. 49% 
88.97 KB/s
 2500K .. .. .. .. .. 50% 
80.00 KB/s
 2550K .. .. .. .. .. 51% 
88.81 KB/s
 2600K .. .. .. .. .. 52% 
86.51 KB/s
 2650K .. .. .. .. .. 53% 
86.51 KB/s
 2700K .. .. .. .. .. 54% 
86.51 KB/s
 2750K .. .. .. .. .. 55% 
84.18 KB/s
 28

[sniffer] Sniffer Updates

[Kevin Stanford]

Our updates seem to be taking a very long time. I am 85% updated and the 
ETA shows 07:00. Is it me?

Kevin
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

RE: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[John Tolmachoff (Lists)]

Title: Message









In defense of Declude, I can clearly say
with knowledge they have had a MAJOR problem with “customers”
stealing their product. I will not go into any detail of what I know, but
suffice it to say I was flabbergasted and shocked when I was told the estimated
amount. 

 

Scott is doing what he does best, work
on the product and support it. What the new owners of the company are doing is
trying to bring control and administration to the company as a whole. 

 

Declude has gone way beyond where it was
at 3 ½ years ago when I became involved in e-mail, and to Scott’s credit
the company became more than what he could handle.

 

I am confidant that as time progresses,
the inherent bugs of what the management of Declude is trying to accomplish while
working with the Declude community as a whole will be ironed out for the
benefit of all.

 

Declude is in a time period of major
change, for the good, which began earlier this year. Let’s work with
them, not against them. After all, patience is a virtue. And that is something
which society as a whole is lacking in today’s environment.

 



John Tolmachoff

Engineer/Consultant/Owner

eServices For You



 



-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 2:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer
updates...

 



John,





I've always respected your
opinions.  I've respected Scott at Declude as well, but I don't think he
has much to say about what happens there anymore.  





 





The powers to be at Declude
obviously look at their customers as theives trying to steal their
product.  I have installed a version of Declude that is not covered under
by any current service policy in attempts to solve a problem.  When I
discovered the old version of Declude was not the problem I reverted
back.  My attempt was rewarded with a threatening email message.  I
looked at it quite differently.  I have no need or want for the new
Declude "features", but if the old version I purchased was defective
I am due version that worked as advertised.  It was up to me to find that
out.  I'm perfectly happy with the old version, and I expect it to work as
advertised. 





 





Their attitude is a spin off of the
Ipswitch attitude to move on to new versions without ever fixing the old
ones.  For example, the new version of Declude (2.0) lists 10 new
features.  Of those 10, four are listed as "fixes" for older
versions.  I know I'm in the minority but I believe it is Declude's
responsibility to provide a fully functional 1.x verson to those who purchased
it.  The 2.0 should only include new features, not fixes from previous
versions.  If I wanted to purcase 2.0 for the new features that would be
fine, but to be forced to purchase a new version or service agreement to get
fixes for problems in a version you already purcased is just plain wrong. 






 





What if that mentality were to be
accepted in the automobile business?  You buy a new car and the air
conditioner doesn't work.  You're told that instead of the 2004 model you
purchased you should pay to upgrade to a 2005 model because we finally got the
air conditioner working for 2005.  Doesn't matter that your 2004 was
advertised with air conditioning or not. 





 





I've had it with that kind of
attitude.  I want a simple, efficient mail server that does exactly what
is advertised.  Nothing more, nothing less.  





 





As for Sniffer.  I've had no
complaints with it at all.  Seems to do exactly what I was told it would
do.  





 





Thanks to everyone for their input!





 





-Joe







- Original Message - 





From: John
Tolmachoff (Lists) 





To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 





Sent: Wednesday,
 December 22, 2004 9:58 AM





Subject: RE: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...





 



Joe, I will back up Matt’s
comments. Declude has/is indeed suffering from less than honest/moral
individuals/companies and they are correct in taking steps to protect their
products and company.

 

Only the method they are using is being
questioned. 

 

Believe me, those of us heavily involved
in Imail/Declude are monitoring this issue and voicing our opinions, both
publicly and privately. 

 

Lets not throw out the baby with the
bath water.

 



John Tolmachoff

Engineer/Consultant/Owner

eServices For You



 



-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 7:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer
updates...

 

Joe,

In their defense, I don't think that they necessarily knew any better than to
have approached it this way.  I don't necessarily get that the new
ownership has worked from the IT side of the business before and understands
security and trust as a corporate administrator would, in fact Barry comes 

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Joe Wolf]

Title: Message



John,
I've always respected your opinions.  I've respected 
Scott at Declude as well, but I don't think he has much to say about what 
happens there anymore.  
 
The powers to be at Declude obviously look at their 
customers as theives trying to steal their product.  I have installed a 
version of Declude that is not covered under by any current service policy in 
attempts to solve a problem.  When I discovered the old version of Declude 
was not the problem I reverted back.  My attempt was rewarded with a 
threatening email message.  I looked at it quite differently.  I have 
no need or want for the new Declude "features", but if the old version I 
purchased was defective I am due version that worked as advertised.  It was 
up to me to find that out.  I'm perfectly happy with the old version, and I 
expect it to work as advertised. 
 
Their attitude is a spin off of the Ipswitch attitude to 
move on to new versions without ever fixing the old ones.  For example, the 
new version of Declude (2.0) lists 10 new features.  Of those 10, four are 
listed as "fixes" for older versions.  I know I'm in the minority but I 
believe it is Declude's responsibility to provide a fully functional 1.x verson 
to those who purchased it.  The 2.0 should only include new features, not 
fixes from previous versions.  If I wanted to purcase 2.0 for the new 
features that would be fine, but to be forced to purchase a new version or 
service agreement to get fixes for problems in a version you already purcased is 
just plain wrong.  
 
What if that mentality were to be accepted in the 
automobile business?  You buy a new car and the air conditioner doesn't 
work.  You're told that instead of the 2004 model you purchased you should 
pay to upgrade to a 2005 model because we finally got the air conditioner 
working for 2005.  Doesn't matter that your 2004 was advertised with air 
conditioning or not. 
 
I've had it with that kind of attitude.  I want a 
simple, efficient mail server that does exactly what is advertised.  
Nothing more, nothing less.  
 
As for Sniffer.  I've had no complaints with it at 
all.  Seems to do exactly what I was told it would do.  
 
Thanks to everyone for their input!
 
-Joe

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  John Tolmachoff (Lists) 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 9:58 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  updates...
  
  
  Joe, I will back up 
  Matt’s comments. Declude has/is indeed suffering from less than honest/moral 
  individuals/companies and they are correct in taking steps to protect their 
  products and company.
   
  Only the method 
  they are using is being questioned. 
   
  Believe me, those 
  of us heavily involved in Imail/Declude are monitoring this issue and voicing 
  our opinions, both publicly and privately. 
   
  Lets not throw out 
  the baby with the bath water.
   
  
  John 
  Tolmachoff
  Engineer/Consultant/Owner
  eServices For 
  You
   
  
  -Original 
  Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Wednesday, 
  December 22, 2004 
  7:23 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  updates...
   
  Joe,In their defense, I don't think that they 
  necessarily knew any better than to have approached it this way.  I don't 
  necessarily get that the new ownership has worked from the IT side of the 
  business before and understands security and trust as a corporate 
  administrator would, in fact Barry comes from the marketing side of the 
  business and I'm afraid that this is a bit of trial-by-fire.  I expect 
  (hope) that he will get the message and change their ways before this will be 
  released in final format.  Scott didn't have the resources to enforce 
  licensing, and as a business, this is critical to their success.  I have 
  no qualms with that goal.  They didn't intend to violate privacy or 
  functionality, they just overlooked it.The whole IMail debacle is a 
  different story.  Most everyone using Declude on that platform will 
  eventually be switching, and Declude has been more than fair by offering free 
  migrations of their license to a different platform, starting with SmarterMail 
  which is very reasonably priced and seemingly quite responsive to their 
  customers.MattJoe Wolf wrote: 
  
  I'm currently using Sniffer via 
  Imail and Declude.  We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is 
  abandoning the small ISP, and now it seems that Declude has lost their 
  way.  The new version of Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  
  That counts me out since I run multiple NIC's in the same machine and am 
  multi-homed.  Their spyware "phone home" system is a violation of our 
  security policies as well.
  
   
  
  That leads me to Sniffer.  I 
  love the product.
  
   
  
  Does anyone ha

Re[2]: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Pete McNeil]

On Wednesday, December 22, 2004, 12:06:17 PM, Matt wrote:

M>  Scott Fosseen wrote: 



M>   So my understanding is that IMail will still be updated for existing users.
  
M>  ...sure, for a 40% increase in cost for your support contract,
M> and absolutely no guarantee that they won't again cancel the
M> product like they did a couple of months ago, only to offer a
M> concession with this huge increase in price for a product that they
M> have indicated clearly wouldn't be marketed to anyone but existing
M> customers and new purchases would have to be negotiated by calling
M> them on the phone and proving to them that you are worth their time.



M>  Please don't get me started :)

Yes. Please don't get started on that here. The issue has been well
hashed in the IMail forum ;-)

As for Declude, they have always been awesome, and my conversations
with Barry and Scott and the rest of the team lead me to believe that
Declude will continue to be a great AV/AS product through the future
on IMail (ICS), Smartermail, and many other platforms.

As with any growth or change there are bound to be a few missteps here
and there along the way, but I'm sure Declude will always make things
right in the end with the support and guidance of the community around
it.

I know we will continue to support them in every way we can :-)

_M






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

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Matt]

Title: Message




Scott Fosseen wrote:

  
  
  
  
  I may have missed this if it was
discussed.  But my last conversation with IPSwitch is that as a current
user of IMail I can continue to purchase support and keep getting
updates to the IMail portions without going to the new product.  The
person told me that the Collaboration Suite will still use the IMail
core so IMail will continue to be developed as a product.  I just can
not purchase IMail by itself anymore.  
   
  So my understanding is that IMail
will still be updated for existing users. 
  

...sure, for a 40% increase in cost for your support contract, and
absolutely no guarantee that they won't again cancel the product like
they did a couple of months ago, only to offer a concession with this
huge increase in price for a product that they have indicated clearly
wouldn't be marketed to anyone but existing customers and new purchases
would have to be negotiated by calling them on the phone and proving to
them that you are worth their time.

This was nothing but a way to recover some of the money that they were
clearly going to lose by not offering the option at all.  Don't be a
sucker for their game, at least know what you are getting.  This is the
same company that claimed that their customer base was "clamoring" for
a a collaboration suite and mandatory bundling with Symantec AntiVirus
that required a repurchase of the software for $6,000 dollars
(unlimited users) and a yearly support contract of $4,000 after that.

Please don't get me started :)

Matt
-- 
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Info Wind]

Title: Message



First sorry for posting in the sniffer 
forum.
 
Same information like Scott Fosseen I got for 2 weeks.
Because of this I have ordered a new licence 
agreement (only for the mailserver) last week and got it today.
I love Sniffer and Declude. In my opinion we should 
give Declude a chance because of the past and the great support in the 
past.
 
Bye,
Uwe

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Scott 
  Fosseen 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 5:48 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  updates...
  
  I may have missed this if it was discussed.  
  But my last conversation with IPSwitch is that as a current user of IMail I 
  can continue to purchase support and keep getting updates to the IMail 
  portions without going to the new product.  The person told me that the 
  Collaboration Suite will still use the IMail core so IMail will continue to be 
  developed as a product.  I just can not purchase IMail by itself 
  anymore.  
   
  So my understanding is that IMail will still be 
  updated for existing users.  
  _Scott 
  Fosseen - Systems Engineer -Prairie Lakes AEAhttp://fosseen.us/scott_It’s 
  not the amendment with which I disagree. It’s the contents ofthe 
  amendment. - Representative Naomi Farve (D-New 
  Orleans)_
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Joe Wolf 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:41 
AM
Subject: [sniffer] Sniffer 
updates...

I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and 
Declude.  We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is 
abandoning the small ISP, and now it seems that Declude has lost their 
way.  The new version of Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  
That counts me out since I run multiple NIC's in the same machine and am 
multi-homed.  Their spyware "phone home" system is a violation of our 
security policies as well.
 
That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the 
product.
 
Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that 
have direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much 
to deal with and I'm going to make a change.
 
Thanks,
Joe

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Scott Fosseen]

Title: Message



I may have missed this if it was discussed.  
But my last conversation with IPSwitch is that as a current user of IMail I can 
continue to purchase support and keep getting updates to the IMail portions 
without going to the new product.  The person told me that the 
Collaboration Suite will still use the IMail core so IMail will continue to be 
developed as a product.  I just can not purchase IMail by itself 
anymore.  
 
So my understanding is that IMail will still be 
updated for existing users.  
_Scott 
Fosseen - Systems Engineer -Prairie Lakes AEAhttp://fosseen.us/scott_It’s 
not the amendment with which I disagree. It’s the contents ofthe amendment. 
- Representative Naomi Farve (D-New 
Orleans)_

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joe Wolf 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:41 
  AM
  Subject: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  updates...
  
  I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and Declude.  
  We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is abandoning the small ISP, 
  and now it seems that Declude has lost their way.  The new version of 
  Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  That counts me out since I run 
  multiple NIC's in the same machine and am multi-homed.  Their spyware 
  "phone home" system is a violation of our security policies as 
  well.
   
  That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the 
  product.
   
  Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that 
  have direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much 
  to deal with and I'm going to make a change.
   
  Thanks,
  Joe

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Jim Matuska]

Title: Message



After much debate we decided to abandon 
Declude/Imail and switch to Mdaemon and will migrate sniffer to the new 
platform.  
 
Jim Matuska Jr.Computer Tech2, CCNANez 
Perce TribeInformation Systems[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Joe Wolf 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:41 
  AM
  Subject: [sniffer] Sniffer 
  updates...
  
  I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and Declude.  
  We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is abandoning the small ISP, 
  and now it seems that Declude has lost their way.  The new version of 
  Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  That counts me out since I run 
  multiple NIC's in the same machine and am multi-homed.  Their spyware 
  "phone home" system is a violation of our security policies as 
  well.
   
  That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the 
  product.
   
  Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that 
  have direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much 
  to deal with and I'm going to make a change.
   
  Thanks,
  Joe

RE: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[John Tolmachoff (Lists)]

Title: Message









Joe, I will back up Matt’s
comments. Declude has/is indeed suffering from less than honest/moral
individuals/companies and they are correct in taking steps to protect their
products and company.

 

Only the method they are using is being
questioned. 

 

Believe me, those of us heavily involved
in Imail/Declude are monitoring this issue and voicing our opinions, both
publicly and privately. 

 

Lets not throw out the baby with the
bath water.

 



John Tolmachoff

Engineer/Consultant/Owner

eServices For You



 



-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 7:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sniffer] Sniffer
updates...

 

Joe,

In their defense, I don't think that they necessarily knew any better than to
have approached it this way.  I don't necessarily get that the new
ownership has worked from the IT side of the business before and understands
security and trust as a corporate administrator would, in fact Barry comes from
the marketing side of the business and I'm afraid that this is a bit of
trial-by-fire.  I expect (hope) that he will get the message and change their
ways before this will be released in final format.  Scott didn't have the
resources to enforce licensing, and as a business, this is critical to their
success.  I have no qualms with that goal.  They didn't intend to
violate privacy or functionality, they just overlooked it.

The whole IMail debacle is a different story.  Most everyone using Declude
on that platform will eventually be switching, and Declude has been more than
fair by offering free migrations of their license to a different platform,
starting with SmarterMail which is very reasonably priced and seemingly quite
responsive to their customers.

Matt



Joe Wolf wrote: 



I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and
Declude.  We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is abandoning
the small ISP, and now it seems that Declude has lost their way.  The new
version of Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  That counts me out
since I run multiple NIC's in the same machine and am multi-homed.  Their
spyware "phone home" system is a violation of our security policies
as well.





 





That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the product.





 





Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that
have direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much to
deal with and I'm going to make a change.





 





Thanks,





Joe







-- =MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.http://www.mailpure.com/software/=

RE: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Michiel Prins]

Title: Message



There's a Sniffer plugin for MDaemon v8.0 (MD 8.0 is still 
in beta)


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe 
WolfSent: woensdag 22 december 2004 15:42To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [sniffer] Sniffer 
updates...

I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and Declude.  
We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is abandoning the small ISP, 
and now it seems that Declude has lost their way.  The new version of 
Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  That counts me out since I run 
multiple NIC's in the same machine and am multi-homed.  Their spyware 
"phone home" system is a violation of our security policies as 
well.
 
That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the 
product.
 
Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that have 
direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much to deal 
with and I'm going to make a change.
 
Thanks,
Joe

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Matt]

Title: Message




Joe,

In their defense, I don't think that they necessarily knew any better
than to have approached it this way.  I don't necessarily get that the
new ownership has worked from the IT side of the business before and
understands security and trust as a corporate administrator would, in
fact Barry comes from the marketing side of the business and I'm afraid
that this is a bit of trial-by-fire.  I expect (hope) that he will get
the message and change their ways before this will be released in final
format.  Scott didn't have the resources to enforce licensing, and as a
business, this is critical to their success.  I have no qualms with
that goal.  They didn't intend to violate privacy or functionality,
they just overlooked it.

The whole IMail debacle is a different story.  Most everyone using
Declude on that platform will eventually be switching, and Declude has
been more than fair by offering free migrations of their license to a
different platform, starting with SmarterMail which is very reasonably
priced and seemingly quite responsive to their customers.

Matt



Joe Wolf wrote:

  
  
  
  
  I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and
Declude.  We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is
abandoning the small ISP, and now it seems that Declude has lost their
way.  The new version of Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  That
counts me out since I run multiple NIC's in the same machine and am
multi-homed.  Their spyware "phone home" system is a violation of our
security policies as well.
   
  That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the product.
   
  Does anyone have a complete list of mail
servers that have direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude
thing is too much to deal with and I'm going to make a change.
   
  Thanks,
  Joe


-- 
=
MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro.
http://www.mailpure.com/software/
=

Re: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Pete McNeil]

JW> Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that have
JW> direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much
JW> to deal  with and I'm going to make a change.

http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Installation/HowTo.html

There are others also, not officially listed yet.

_M

  



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

RE: [sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Craig Deal]

Title: Message








I currently use mxGuard. It works great
for me with F-Prot, ClamAV, and Message Sniffer. Declude has more configuration
options, but for the price mxGuard is hard to beat. Plus the cost is low enough
that you can afford to purchase more than one copy if you have multiple
servers. As far as license is concerned, they use an installation key that is
tied to the OHN in IMail.

 

Craig 

 









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004
8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sniffer] Sniffer
updates...



 



I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and Declude.  We
all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is abandoning the small ISP, and
now it seems that Declude has lost their way.  The new version of Declude
is tied to a single MAC address.  That counts me out since I run multiple
NIC's in the same machine and am multi-homed.  Their spyware "phone
home" system is a violation of our security policies as well.





 





That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the product.





 





Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that have
direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much to deal
with and I'm going to make a change.





 





Thanks,





Joe

[sniffer] Sniffer updates...

[Joe Wolf]

Title: Message



I'm currently using Sniffer via Imail and Declude.  
We all know that Ipswitch has lost their mind and is abandoning the small ISP, 
and now it seems that Declude has lost their way.  The new version of 
Declude is tied to a single MAC address.  That counts me out since I run 
multiple NIC's in the same machine and am multi-homed.  Their spyware 
"phone home" system is a violation of our security policies as 
well.
 
That leads me to Sniffer.  I love the 
product.
 
Does anyone have a complete list of mail servers that have 
direct support for Sniffer?  The Imail / Declude thing is too much to deal 
with and I'm going to make a change.
 
Thanks,
Joe