<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Miner Data Priorities in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/miner-data-priorities/m-p/148228#M98827</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Is there a way to have MineMeld prioritize miner data once they get to the output stage? Since some&amp;nbsp;output feeds may be too large for certain firewalls, I want to ensure that our static blacklist is always at the top of the list. Currently new additions that don't overlap space with other miner data seem to show up at the bottom of the list causing them to get cutoff from the smaller firewalls.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:38:28 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>groehl</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-03-17T14:38:28Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Miner Data Priorities</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/miner-data-priorities/m-p/148228#M98827</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Is there a way to have MineMeld prioritize miner data once they get to the output stage? Since some&amp;nbsp;output feeds may be too large for certain firewalls, I want to ensure that our static blacklist is always at the top of the list. Currently new additions that don't overlap space with other miner data seem to show up at the bottom of the list causing them to get cutoff from the smaller firewalls.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:38:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/miner-data-priorities/m-p/148228#M98827</guid>
      <dc:creator>groehl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-17T14:38:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Miner Data Priorities</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/miner-data-priorities/m-p/148317#M98828</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/35515"&gt;@groehl&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;my suggestion is to dedicate an output node to your static blacklist, and create an EDL entry on the devices pointing to that blacklist. Basically you can just create a separate chain where your static blacklist Miner is directly connected to a feed output node. This way the contents of your static blacklist will never been pushed down by updates from the low priority dynamic Miners.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:58:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/miner-data-priorities/m-p/148317#M98828</guid>
      <dc:creator>lmori</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-18T15:58:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

