Hello Darin, Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 7:31:29 AM, you wrote:
> > > The one issue with this I have is > > > > 1) Forward full original source to Sniffer with license code. > > If we could do it without the license code, it would be much > easier to automate on our end. I already have a process in place > to copy and reroute false positives by rewriting the Q file. I'm > hesitant to alter the message itself to add the license code. If we > could authenticate the FP report via some other means it would help > greatly. How about connecting IP instead? At the moment that is how it's done: a combination of email address and source IP are matched with the license ID. The reason we ask for the license ID is because folks submitting false positives occasionally forget that we authenticate on their registered email address and use some other address. -- The rule is that if the system can't match the email address it should/may drop the message rather than evaluating it. We get a lot of spam and attempts to game the system at our false@ address... so when it's heavy we do drop messages that can't be properly identified. However, in an effort to provide the best service possible, if the license ID is present and we have the time we will look to see if it could be a legit FP submission by researching the source and domain - and if we think it is likely to be legitimate we will process the FP and respond with an additional code reminding the submitter that they must use their registered email address or an authorized alias. _M -- Pete McNeil Chief Scientist, Arm Research Labs, LLC. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <sniffer@sortmonster.com>. 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]>