Pete
I thought the local gbudb got updates from the service or was that a future
enhancement?
> Original message
> Subject: [sniffer] Re: IP Change on rulebase delivery system
> From: Richard Stupek 'rstu...@gmail.com');>>
> To: Message Sniffer
Thanks for the info. Mine can speak XCI, its custom.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> On 2013-05-23 17:21, Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> Would this: http://armresearch.com/**support/articles/software/**
>> snfServer/xci/gbudb.jsp<http://armresearch
Would this:
http://armresearch.com/support/articles/software/snfServer/xci/gbudb.jsp yield
the same results as using the ip4 blocklist?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> On 2013-05-23 16:41, Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> Can you point me at the documentation for
Can you point me at the documentation for the truncate blacklist and its
usage?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> On 2013-05-23 15:22, Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> Looks like I have this issue again (pegging 4 core cpu) and resetting the
>> process doesn&#
27 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> On 2013-03-29 12:59, Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> well when all else fails restarting snf seems to have corrected the issue
>> for now.
>>
>
> In that case, it is likely that RAM fragmentation was involved. Dropping
> the process allowed th
poor performing.
>
> Darin.
>
>
> *From:* Richard Stupek
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:10 PM
> *To:* Message Sniffer Community
> *Subject:* [sniffer] Re: IP Change on rulebase delivery system
>
> Ok looking at the log I see quite a few
:16, Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> The spikes aren't as prolonged at the present.
>>
>
> Interesting. A short spike like that might be expected if the message was
> longer than usual, but on average SNF should be very light-weight.
>
> One thing you can check is the pe
te McNeil
wrote:
> On 2013-03-27 16:49, Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> Its odd because the number of messags snf is processing isn't more than
>> usual and the % of spam being detected through snf is actually lower than
>> typical yet is is routinely maxing out 4 processo
Its odd because the number of messags snf is processing isn't more than
usual and the % of spam being detected through snf is actually lower than
typical yet is is routinely maxing out 4 processors at 100%.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> On 2013-03-27 14:38, Darin Cox wrote
Not sure if its related but since yesterday SNFserver CPU utilization has
been inordinately high (>50%) for the middle of the day with not any
additional volume in mail being received.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> Hi Sniffer Folks,
>
> We are about to change the IP of the
Congratulations. Keep up the good work!
adn't noticed.
>
> Checking my ping times and traceroutes show that I have no packet loss but
> there is random extra lag of zero to 85ms on AboveNet, which sits between my
> provider and RackSpace where the updates server is.
>
>
> Andrew.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Message Sniffer Community [mailto:snif...@sortmonster.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Richard Stupek
> *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2009 11:16 AM
> *To:* Message Sniffer Community
> *Subject:* [sniffer] curl couldn't connect to host
>
> I just started seeing this error for the getrulebase.cmd script. Is there
> an issue going on?
>
I just started seeing this error for the getrulebase.cmd script. Is there
an issue going on?
If we have a up to date snf file, will the script cause snf2check to print
out "ERROR_RULE_FILE!"?
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> Hello Sniffer Folks,
>
> We have determined that using the latest getRulbase.cmd script w/ CURL does
> resolve the DST problem.
> Please update
ssing through nullify the bad event? Should I post 2 bad events for
each mail that is caught after sniffer?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. Is there any diagnostic information available when a
>> gbudb sync occu
Thanks for the info. Is there any diagnostic information available when a
gbudb sync occurs?
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> A question on GBUDB utilization. I show a current utilization of 95%
>> (from the log file) which
gbudb XCI commands (like ) show up in a log file?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> So there would not be a real benefit to passing the IP over when it is the
>> is already in the mail having been added by the mail server?
>>
So there would not be a real benefit to passing the IP over when it is the
is already in the mail having been added by the mail server?
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Pete McNeil
wrote:
> Richard Stupek wrote:
>
>> Which of the 2 scan commands should we use to scan a message? Doe
Which of the 2 scan commands should we use to scan a message? Does sending
the IP address help improve scanning?
OR
Does the snf XML command interface for GBUdb work? I was considering
pumping in bad IPs as I find them into the GBUdb and also short-circuiting
spam processing by calling the GBUdb to determine the status of an IP to
reduce workload. Is this something that sounds like a workable idea?
Ok. We are seeing a large amount of spam lately that is not being picked up
through snf and most of it has the "from" and the "to" set the same. Are you
seeing anything similar?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pete McNeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
>
> Thursday, December 4, 20
Is the GBUdb currently sharing information as described in the
documentation? Do the GBUdb XCI commands detailed within snf_xci.xml work
through the tcp interface?
22 matches
Mail list logo
