2011 4:05 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer settings
I am using the built-in version of Sniffer and the recommended Declude
setting.
However, lately I'm seeing lots of spam get through that is failing some of
the sniffer tests. I'd like to increase the weight
I am using the built-in version of Sniffer and the recommended Declude setting.
However, lately I'm seeing lots of spam get through that is failing some of the
sniffer tests. I'd like to increase the weight on some of these failures.
Recommendations?
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.Jun
On 12/13/2010 5:02 PM, Harry Vanderzand wrote:
Is
there any documentation on what I need to do.
Sure, right here:
http://www.armresearch.com/support/articles/software/snfServer/config/index.jsp
http://www.arm
essage in error. Thank you.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: December-13-10 3:50 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] sniffer question
On 12/13/2010 1:09 PM, Harry Vanderzand wrote:
For reliable ser
On 12/13/2010 1:09 PM, Harry Vanderzand wrote:
For reliable service on Message Sniffer questions, please send your
questions to supp...@armresearch.com; or join the sniffer@ list and
ask our community of Message Sniffer users. (I try to keep an eye
on this list, bu
Just checking my sniffer logs. The following is an excerpt that I have a
question o0n:
I='216.16.233.12" is my mail server. This mail came from 94.190.11.38
originally and also has an AOL ip in the headers
What is the I= supposed to represent?
Thi
Title: Release 4.10.42
On 5/5/2010 4:05 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
The
golden rule for external tests and for RBLs is – if
you have multiple lines using the SAME “command”
(e.g., the 18 “SNF” lines), or referring to the same external
program (e.g., 5 invURIBL lines), or
the
same golden rule applies here even though these are NOT multiple lines of
the SAME command.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:47 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integr
Title: Release 4.10.42
On 5/5/2010 3:24 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi
Dave
(just in case this got overlooked – or I missed the
answer),
>>
Also even though
there are multiple entries the test only runs once and the resulted
exit code
is the triggered. <<
I
know that al
, May 05, 2010 3:14 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight
Scheme
On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Dave,
Hm - yes,I think if you added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the
config file, you would have could cover
/3?
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
The test works as a
On 5/5/2010 1:30 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Dave,
Hm –
yes,I think if you
added 21 lines (from -10 to 0 and to +10) to the config file, you would
have could
cover the reputation range from -1 to +1 in 0.1 step increments.
Not
elegant – but would
have the same effect
.
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 12:12 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight
Scheme
Just a thought. We would have
: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:52 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation -- Graduated Weight
Scheme
Hi Dave,
I'm breaking this into two discussions as they ar
8:57 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration - Bad snf_engine.xml
Importance: High
Dave,
Pete has helped me figure out that your XML samples, e.g.:
http://interim.declude.com/41048/Scanners/SNF/snf_engine.xml
is NOT a valid XML file
Dave,
Pete has helped me figure out that your XML samples, e.g.:
http://interim.declude.com/41048/Scanners/SNF/snf_engine.xml
is NOT a valid XML file.
Specifically, the closing tag for the "node" element is invalid.
It MUST be:
(Currently it is "").
depending on "how
good" the IP is).
This would make the test really useful because it would only cause BIG
weight changes for BIG GBUdb values.
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:40
ty on with the use of this test.
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:28 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer "BasePoint"
Hi Dave,
Let's keep the BasePoint a
om [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:40 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation for "white" listing
As Pete already provided input on this. I am not going to prolix the answer
other than
clude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation for "white" listing
Hi Pete,
Funny - our messages overlapped. But I'm glad I was on the right track with
my suspicions. Hopefully this will help Declude to refine things.
>> a better way to do it would be to scale the
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
The test works as an internal test and not as an exter
On 5/1/2010 1:51 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Right - that's the same scheme I just pointed
out to Dave
myself - except in my case you could pick a distinct factor for the
"-" vs. the "+" side of the scale (because Declude already
has that option anyhow)
I was trying
riginal Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:57 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP Reputation for "white" listing
On 4/30/2010 9:32 PM, Andy Schmidt
: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 10:11 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP vs. Sniffer IP Reputation vs.
Sniffer Truncate
My quick response.
The "out of the box Declude" Customer
On 4/30/2010 9:32 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
But your documentation of the reputation system has a graph that shows that
there is yet another category: "WHITE".
I don't know the details of Declude's impelementation. Presumably they
could (or maybe even do) implement WHITE.
The SNFIPREP
: Friday, April 30, 2010 9:26 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP vs. Sniffer IP Reputation vs.
Sniffer Truncate
Thanks Pete - that confirms what I feared.
Declude's own sample should NOT be used "as is" because it duplicates the
IP
resu
lude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 7:07 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer IP vs. Sniffer IP Reputation vs.
Sniffer Truncate
On 4/30/2010 5:16 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> I'
ct). It's not at all clear that after all
their Sniffer rules, 30 would be added to the weight in several cases.
-Original Message-
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeil
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 7:07 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Sub
On 4/30/2010 5:16 PM, Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Pete,
I'm look over Decludes recommended Sniffer configuration and trying to
understand how much overlap there is between these options:
IPREPUTATIONSNFIPREPx 0 10 -5
SNFIPCAUTIONSNFIP x
ailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
The test works as an internal test and not as an external test. The main
d
Hi Pete,
I'm look over Decludes recommended Sniffer configuration and trying to
understand how much overlap there is between these options:
IPREPUTATIONSNFIPREPx 0 10 -5
SNFIPCAUTIONSNFIP x 4 5 0
SNFIPBL
lude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
So what's the difference between the SNIFFER test as Internal vs External?
Is one faster than the other? Assuming you did not want to check the
individual tests (ie SNIFFER-TRAVEL) is there an
t.exe"12 0
-Jim
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
I have already added it to the dev list as an idea.
David
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:52 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"
ouncement for a new
"exit code" whenever Peter decides to extend the list
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:14 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global
.
David
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of Andy
Schmidt
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:31 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration -> Global Exit Code
"nonzero"?
Hi Dave,
Thanks for taking the ti
0
Best Regards,
Andy
From: supp...@declude.com [mailto:supp...@declude.com] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:05 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration
SNFIPBLACK SNFIP the 2nd variable value is 5 = Block and
e.com
, April 30, 2010 1:26 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Integration
Hi,
1. I'm confused about the Sniffer integration sample:
SNFIPBLACK SNFIP x 5 10 0
IPREPUTATIONSN
Hi,
1. I'm confused about the Sniffer integration sample:
SNFIPBLACK SNFIP x 5 10 0
IPREPUTATIONSNFIP x 5 10 -5
It seems to me as if BOTH lines test the SAME Sniffer return code of "5"
@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer
- New EngineImportance: High
whats the link?
I cant find it here http://kb.armresearch.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Kindest RegardsCraig
Edmonds123 Marbella InternetW: www.123marbella.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
try here:
http://kb.armresearch.com/index.php?title=Message_Sniffer.GettingStarted.Distributions
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig EdmondsSent:
Monday, October 30, 2006 9:21 AMTo:
declude.junkmail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer
For those using sniffer (like me) there is
a new engine that you can download.
It claims
to be twice as fast.
That should be very useful theses days where
spam traffice have increased a lot.
-Luis Arango
---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. Tounsubscribe, jus
, October 30, 2006 3:10 PMTo:
declude.junkmail@declude.comSubject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer - New
Engine
For those using sniffer (like me) there is
a new engine that you can download.
It claims
to be twice as fast.
That should be very useful theses days where
spam traffice have increased a lot
declude.junkmail@declude.comSubject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer vs. Commtouch
Hi All -
We've been very happy users of Sniffer for several years,
but now that Declude is including the Commtouch solution, we
Title: Message
Hi;
We are using Commtouch but it stopped working after
upgrading to the latest Declude release - .14.
I am not sure if others are having the problem .. but
for us Commtouch has not been working for over a week now.
Regards,
Kami
---This E-mail came from the Declude.J
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sharyn SchmidtSent:
Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:19 AMTo:
declude.junkmail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer
vs. Commtouch
I've been using commtouch for a few weeks now and
have noticed a significant reduction in spam.
This
time.
Kindest RegardsCraig Edmonds123
Marbella InternetW: www.123marbella.comE : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sharyn SchmidtSent:
Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:19 PMTo:
declude.junkmail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail
Title: Message
I've been using commtouch for a few weeks now and
have noticed a significant reduction in spam.
This is in
addition to declude? Does a line get put in the config file to point to
this? Does this work with an older version of
Declude?
We h
andlerSent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:56 AMTo:
declude.junkmail@declude.comSubject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer vs.
Commtouch
Hi All -
We've been very happy users of Sniffer for several years,
but now that Declude is including the Commtouch solution, we need to consider
it.
Any though
Hi All -
We've been very happy users of Sniffer for several years,
but now that Declude is including the Commtouch solution, we need to consider
it.
Any thoughts, comparisons, suggestions?
We're a very small shop, if that matters. We're not
an ISP, so the licensing weirdness doesn't
> How do you have Razor configed? eg is it on a win32 box? If so would
> you share how you did it?
No, it's physically on a BSD box, called under Declude via the lovely
SPAMC32 (which, BTW, has a significant upgrade coming very soon).
--Sandy
Sanford Whitem
Hi Sandy,
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Well, we've lately been running Razor *and* Sniffer and have found no
reason to give up either one.
How do you have Razor configed? eg is it on a win32 box? If so would you
share how you did it?
-Nick
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing
> The Razor you mentioned, is that Vipul's Razor at Sourceforge?
Yes.
--Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SpamAssassin plugs into Declude!
http://www.impr
Asked because I didn't know if there were any other alternatives. Sniffer has
performed well, but with the price jump, reduced educational discount (10 down
from 20%), and some really tight budgets, the smart thing to do is ask.
The Razor you mentioned, is that Vipul's Razor at Sourceforge?
Joh
> Is anyone running an alternative to Message Sniffer under Declude?
> Was about to renew at the new price and was just wondering.
Well, we've lately been running Razor *and* Sniffer and have found no
reason to give up either one. The combo is powerful, and I'd still say
Sniffer is worth the $
Is anyone running an alternative to Message Sniffer under Declude? Was
about to renew at the new price and was just wondering.
Thanks,
John C
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.Junk
References:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Declude-Spoolname: De65b1fc.SMD
On Thursday, February 16, 2006, 3:28:06 PM, Jay wrote:
JSHNL> I'll be damned. Apparently Diskeeper believes that "Start Time" really
JSH
rom hell over here.
-Jay
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jay Sudowski -
Handy Networks LLC
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:18 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Slow / Declude Problem?
I have ma
I have mails backing up in my proc because Sniffer seems to be running
slow, or is this a Declude issue? I'm not really sure because Sniffer
seems to be processing the message very quickly, but Declude shows about
a 30 second lag time between calling Sniffer and getting any results
back ...
02/16
EXCELLLENT :-)
-Anton
-- Original Message --
From: Heimir Eidskrem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:18:11 -0600
>Chris Anton wrote:
>> How do i get onto the sniffer email list?
>> -Anton
>> ---
>> [Th
Chris Anton wrote:
How do i get onto the sniffer email list?
-Anton
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkM
How do i get onto the sniffer email list?
-Anton
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude EVA www.declude.com]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives c
.com
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer in Persistent Mode
> using Windows Resource Kit Tools
>
> I am confused with step 6
>
> 6. Next Add a Value and type this information Value
> Name:Application Data
> Type: REG_SZ (String)
> String: [full path of your sniffer installatio
On Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 9:28:16 AM, Dean wrote:
DL> Markus,
DL>
DL> You still point to the executable in your global config file,
DL> but since sniffer is running in persistant mode, it doesn't
DL> automatically launch a new instance.
That's almost correct... What happens is that the
uter Services
519-741-1222
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Panda Consulting S.A. Luis Alberto Arango
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:15 AM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMa
unkMail@declude.com
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer in Persistent Mode using> Windows Resource Kit Tools>> Here is another method to install sniffer in persistent mode.>> I just want to share it with you and others out there. I hope
> it is useful.> I am not sure if there is inform
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:15 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer in Persistent Mode using
> Windows Resource Kit Tools
>
> Here is another method to install sniffer in persistent mode.
>
> I just want to share it with you a
Here is another method to install sniffer in persistent mode.
I just want to share it with you and others out there. I hope it is useful.
I am not sure if there is information about how to install persistent mode
using the windows resource kit tools in this list. So I decided to post it
just in c
t;C:\IMail\declude\sniffer\yourlicensecode.exe
yourverificationcode" 5 0
we mark subject line at 80 and hold at
150
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T
(Lists)Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 8:03 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
ch get attached at 35 and deleted at 50.
John T
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Goran Jovanovic
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 10:23 AM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail]
Sniffer weigh
Hi,
Does anyone have a good list of all the
SNIFFER categories and different weights for them that they would like to
share?
Thanks
Goran Jovanovic
Omega Network
Solutions
02, 2005 12:23
PM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer &
Invuribl
Hi all,
I have been using sniffer for a year and recently
add INVURIBL.
i am trying to find the corrolation between the 2
test to set the weight.
I tag at 10 and delete at 30..
I had sniffer at 14.
n
one testing that "combo test" with the use of another external
filter for COUNTRY.
Erik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 12:19 PM
To: Serge
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.Junk
On Sunday, October 2, 2005, 1:23:21 PM, Serge wrote:
S> Hi all,
S>
S> I have been using sniffer for a year and recently add INVURIBL.
S> i am trying to find the corrolation between the 2 test to set the weight.
S> I tag at 10 and delete at 30..
S> I had sniffer at 14.
S> now i added invuribl w
Hi all,
I have been using sniffer for a year and recently
add INVURIBL.
i am trying to find the corrolation between the 2
test to set the weight.
I tag at 10 and delete at 30..
I had sniffer at 14.
now i added invuribl with a max weight of
14.
i have spamcop at 9.
and a set of negative weig
Hi all,
I have been using sniffer for a year and recently
add INVURIBL.
i am trying to find the corrolation between the 2
test to set the weight.
I tag at 10 and delete at 30..
I had sniffer at 14.
now i added invuribl with a max weight of
14.
i have spamcop at 9.
and a set of negative weig
It's best not to delete on one test. Although I weight sniffer very high on
my system.
Darrell
-
DLAnalyzer - Comprehensive reporting on Declude Junkmail and Virus. Try it
today - http://www.invariantsystems.com
Timothy Bohen writes:
I "thought
I "thought" I used to have declude delete everything that sniffer found, now
when I went into my $default$.junkmail file I find its set to LOG.
I assume one of my network admins changed this at some time.
Am I relatively safe in setting it to "delete" or is this a bad idea?
__ __
On Sunday, September 11, 2005, 11:46:12 PM, Kim wrote:
KP> Over the weekend, a lot of spam has been getting through.
KP> Checking the Declude JunkMail log file shows the following:
KP>09/10/2005 00:01:41.906 q84a2205001d48c60 ERROR: External
KP> program SNIFFER didn't finish quick enough; ter
Over the weekend, a lot of spam has been getting through. Checking the Declude
JunkMail log file shows the following:
09/10/2005 00:01:41.906 q84a2205001d48c60 ERROR: External program SNIFFER
didn't finish quick enough; terminating.
Can anyone shed some light on this? That is, what would cau
Overflow Queue Monitoring, SURBL/URI
integration, MRTG Integration, and Log Parsers.
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Question
Thanks for all your help.
om 15 to 35. I hold at 25 and delete at 35.
John T
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Rogers
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:37 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sn
://www.invariantsystems.com
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Doherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Question
John, does that mean sniffer runs 17 times on each mesage, or does it
retur
Thanks.
- Original Message -
From: "John Tolmachoff (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Question
In the Global.cfg, as long as the Sniffer call line is the same except for
the return co
es?
DD> - Original Message -
DD> From: "John Tolmachoff (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DD> To:
DD> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:02 PM
DD> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Question
>> Best thing is to ask on the Sniffer List.
>>
>>
t; [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Doherty
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 5:19 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Question
>
> John, does that mean sniffer runs 17 times on each mesage, or does it
return
> multiple codes?
John, does that mean sniffer runs 17 times on each mesage, or does it return
multiple codes?
- Original Message -
From: "John Tolmachoff (Lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 8:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Question
Best
Personally, my sniffer is set to 2/3 of my hold weight, that test really
doesn't give me troube as long as I keep my .snf file updated.
I'm curious as to what other people do as well.
- greg
> I just setup Sniffer for the first time and I'm wondering what people
> have their external test weig
ECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Rogers
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 4:37 PM
> To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer Question
>
> I just setup Sniffer for the first time and I'm wondering what people
> have their external test weight set to. My
I just setup Sniffer for the first time and I'm wondering what people
have their external test weight set to. My global.cfg came with a
sniffer test already configured (though it was commented out) to have a
weight of 7, which actually gives it a weight of 8 for some reason I
couldn't figure o
siness)Fax: +1 201 934-9206
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of MattSent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 05:17
PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer vs. SURBLAndy,Again,
Sniffer generally tags ove
> While Sniffer is the most effective test on my system I see a lot of
> SPAM that Sniffer does not catch that is caught against the SURBL
> lists.
Same here. . . I don't see any reason to come out against a secondary
content test just because it isn't close to Sniffer on its own. URIBLs
are
to combat spam.
Darrell
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
To:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent:
Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:16 PM
Subject:
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer vs. SURBL
Andy,
Again, Sniffer generally tags over 96% of all sp
9:23
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer
vs. SURBL
Andy,I'm not sure how you are seeing the results that
you are seeing. Sniffer tags from 95% to 97.5% of spam on any given day
on my system with a good portion of what gets through being either fresh spam
sources, nich
ail@declude.com
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:16
PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer
vs. SURBL
Andy,Again, Sniffer generally tags over 96% of
all spam on my system. That only leaves 4% that could possibly be tagged
by something else that Sniffer didn't hit. It is
.
Best Regards
Andy Schmidt
Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20
(Business)
Fax: +1 201 934-9206
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 03:20 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Su
)Fax: +1 201 934-9206
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of MattSent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 03:20
PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer vs. SURBLLet me re-summarize
because I think that b
Let me re-summarize because I think that both you and Andy
misunderstood different elements of what I said.
First, Sniffer doesn't miss 11% of spam unless there was something
wrong. The stats provided were likely inaccurate for one reason or
another.
Second, Sniffer does cross checking with
- Original Message -
From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My fault for mixing up names in this case. I was thinking about the
> combined URIBL zone and not your version of the checker. The issue that
> I was really intending to speak to was the combined zone
> (multi.surbl.org) that some
9206
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of MattSent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:23
AMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re:
[Declude.JunkMail] Sniffer vs. SURBLAndy,I'm not
sure how you are seeing the results that
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
