Pete,
If the data is normalized, tab delimited seems like the most widely
available choice. I've never played with XML, and although it might be
more useful in many places, in others it presents overhead, especially
as far as a learning curve goes.
It may also be that real-time reporting isn
Pete,
From my own perspective, here are some comments.
1) "unwanted commercial advertising" isn't necessarily spam. I often
find rules in the General group from others nominating sources that are
generally perceived as being of low value, including by myself, but
aren't technically spam by the
I would have to agree with John.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of John Back
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [sniffer] Gray Ho
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 4:46:13 PM, Scott wrote:
SF> My June stats show that my Sniffer 60 codes are slightly over
SF> 75% not-spam. As a result the Declude weight is less than half of
SF> the other sniffer categories.
SF> Those 25% spam items that come in as Sniffer code 60 can be
SF> trouble
My June stats show that my Sniffer 60 codes are slightly over 75% not-spam. As a
result the Declude weight is less than half of the other sniffer categories.
Those 25% spam items that come in as Sniffer code 60 can be troublesome to detect for
me, getting those to a full sniffer weight would be h
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 4:00:50 PM, Glenn wrote:
GW> Well, my response to this is . . . . I've been running with Group 60 broken
GW> out as a separate test, with a weight of -25, since it seems to encompass
GW> "Joke-of-the-Day" and other such mailing lists that some people do seem to
GW> want
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 3:36:03 PM, Landry wrote:
LW> Pete, would you consider assigning a specific result code, other than "0",
LW> for tests that come back as "WHITE' versus "CLEAN"? I would like to add a
LW> negative weight in Declude for messages that are specifically whitelisted
LW> ver
Looking at our stats, I think that it would be fine to drop as well.
Herb
Pete McNeil wrote:
Hello Sniffer Folks,
We are reviewing a number of statistics with an eye toward reducing
false positives. We have already changed a number of our rule coding
policies where our highest false positive rat
Well, my response to this is . . . . I've been running with Group 60 broken
out as a separate test, with a weight of -25, since it seems to encompass
"Joke-of-the-Day" and other such mailing lists that some people do seem to
want. I haven't actively monitored the legitimate hits on it, or the
fals
Pete,
Your logic is sound and based the facts presented I am in support of the
gray rule change.
John Back
Baldwin School
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sn
I have both gray hosting and experimental turned off because I can't take
the time to validate all sources of newsletter type email that my users may
be receiving from these sources. Most of the mail that gets tagged as gray
hosting seems to be legitimate mail that a user has subscribed to and has
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 3:16:24 PM, John wrote:
JTL> As a new user of Sniffer, I am not familiar with reports available, but I
JTL> would be interested in learning if there is a way to create reports from the
JTL> logs or otherwise.
There are no direct reports available, but many users have c
Pete, this proposed change seems to make sense to me. Just let us know when
you plan to make the change.
Thanks,
Bill
-Original Message-
From: Pete McNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [sniffer] Gray Hosting Change Of St
And another one.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: RE: [sniffer] Reporting - was: spam leakage up
>
> MDae
LOL
Some one does not have the spam software configured correctly!
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: RE: [sn
Pete, would you consider assigning a specific result code, other than "0",
for tests that come back as "WHITE' versus "CLEAN"? I would like to add a
negative weight in Declude for messages that are specifically whitelisted
versus just clean. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Bill
Hello Sniffer Folks,
We are reviewing a number of statistics with an eye toward reducing
false positives. We have already changed a number of our rule coding
policies where our highest false positive rates are found.
One of the proposed changes is controversial and I would very much
lik
As a new user of Sniffer, I am not familiar with reports available, but I
would be interested in learning if there is a way to create reports from the
logs or otherwise.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EM
HTML would be cool, even nicer would be an installer that would make it an
option under the Imail Administrator's web interface menu.
Jim Matuska Jr.
Computer Tech II
CCNA
Nez Perce Tribe
Information Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
I agreee, xml is the way to go for sure
Herb
Andy Schmidt wrote:
Hi Pete:
I think XML is the way to go. The lack of feedback may not be due to your
choice of format - but rather that there really isn't too much to discuss
about the obviousyfields that your sample offered.
I did provid
Thanks,
_M
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 2:21:20 PM, Andy wrote:
AS> Hi Pete:
AS> I think XML is the way to go. The lack of feedback may not be due to your
AS> choice of format - but rather that there really isn't too much to discuss
AS> about the obviousyfields that your sample offered.
AS> I
Hi Pete:
I think XML is the way to go. The lack of feedback may not be due to your
choice of format - but rather that there really isn't too much to discuss
about the obviousyfields that your sample offered.
I did provide some feedback - but overall I felt you were on the right track
and peopl
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 12:23:22 PM, Herb wrote:
HG> Yes, I did about a year or so ago as I remember. I don't
HG> know, isthere a spot for this on the message sniffer site?
HG> Sniffer folks Then it would be available to whoever wanted it.
Sure. Please package it up in a .zip file for u
We are working on specs for real-time reporting out of Sniffer and
haven't had a lot of feedback on the XML based format. We were looking
at this format because, in theory anyway, it's easy to port into a
database or even directly into a web page or other format.
Am I guessing right that the reaso
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 11:01:47 AM, Aaron wrote:
AC> Herb,
AC> I have noticed a decline in tagged SPAM. We were tagging aprox 80% of
AC> all e-mail as SPAM. The last two days its been about 50%.
AC> I haven't looked into it to far, but if this continues I will.
Log analysis doesn't show
On Thursday, June 24, 2004, 10:50:34 AM, Herb wrote:
HG> In the last couple days we are seeing quite an increase in the amount of
HG> spam leaking past sniffer and declude. Anyone else seeing this?
We have quite a spam storm going...
I personally had a 4 hour rule coding session last night - all
Hello all;
There are two parser pages, one for sniffer and declude on imail, and
another for sniffer on a linux/postmail server, and two display pages
as well. From there on any porgrammer should be able to modify as
needed. Someone else on the list also offered to perhaps convert the
code t
Yes, I did about a year or so ago as I remember. I don't know, is
there a spot for this on the message sniffer site? Sniffer folks
Then it would be available to whoever wanted it.
Herb
Tom Baker | Netsmith Inc wrote:
Didnt you post this a long time
ago?
If you'll post it
Title: Message
Thanks
for the offer to share your cf code. Post it here if you don't
mind.
Thanks
Again!
Stephen
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Herb GuentherSent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:55
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 24 Jun 2004 at 10:55, Herb Guenther wrote:
Herb,
If you would be so generous it would be much appreciated...
-Nick
> I wrote a coldfusion page that parses the logs into a sql database
> every night, and then the display page you saw. If you have a
> coldfusion server I would be happy to gi
Didnt you post this a long time ago?
If you'll post it again i'll copy it and maybe convert it
to perl
( I have coldfusion but do most of my reports in perl..
tends to be a little faster )
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herb
GuentherSent: Thursday, June 24
Thanks Herb but we don't have Coldfusion.
Looks great tho!
Aaron
www.vantech.net
On Jun 24, 2004, at 8:55 AM, Herb Guenther wrote:
I wrote a coldfusion page that parses the logs into a sql database every night, and then the display page you saw. If you have a coldfusion server I would be happy
Yes, I would also like to know how you generated that nice
spam report.
Michael SteinComputer Housewww.computerhouse.com
- Original Message -
From:
Herb Guenther
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:46
AM
Subject: Re: [sniffer] spam leakage
u
I wrote a coldfusion page that parses the logs into a sql database
every night, and then the display page you saw. If you have a
coldfusion server I would be happy to give you the code.
Herb
Aaron J.Caviglia wrote:
Herb,
How did you generate that SPAM report?
Thanks,
Aaron Cav
On 24 Jun 2004 at 10:46, Herb Guenther wrote:
Herb,
very kool - nice output. How do you compile the info if you don't
mind me asking?
-Nick Hayer
> Here is our last weeks stats, we did not see an increase in volume, so
> much as the amount gettig thru in the last couple days and continuing
Herb,
How did you generate that SPAM report?
Thanks,
Aaron Caviglia
www.vantech.net
On Jun 24, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Herb Guenther wrote:
wow, that is even worse than we are seeing, we are at about 80%, but should really be at about 85% if all were tagged.
Here is our last weeks stats, we did no
wow, that is even worse than we are seeing, we are at about 80%, but
should really be at about 85% if all were tagged.
Here is our last weeks stats, we did not see an increase in volume, so
much as the amount gettig thru in the last couple days and continuing
today.
Herb
Yes I have seen an increase in spam not tagged by sniffer or in a lot of
cases by any other of the declude tests that I am using. I also have
notice quite a large increase in overall spam and attribute at least
some of the leakage to this increase. Some day's I am seeing 94% spam
and 6 % legitimate
Herb,
I have noticed a decline in tagged SPAM. We were tagging aprox 80% of
all e-mail as SPAM. The last two days its been about 50%.
I haven't looked into it to far, but if this continues I will.
Aaron Caviglia
VanTech.Net
www.vantech.net
On Jun 24, 2004, at 7:50 AM, Herb Guenther wrote:
In th
I have seen this and been sending them on the Spam@
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:50 AM
Subject: [sniffer] spam leakage up
> In the last couple days we are seeing quite an increase in the amount o
In the last couple days we are seeing quite an increase in the amount of
spam leaking past sniffer and declude. Anyone else seeing this?
Herb
--
Herb Guenther
Lanex, LLC
www.lanex.com
(262)789-0966x102 Office
(262)780-0424 Direct
This e-mail is confidential and is for the use of the intended rec
41 matches
Mail list logo
