On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Matt wrote: > There are ways to monitor clamd, and run clamscan if clamd is > unavailable, without expecting the software itself to do it. Clam is > fine as it is. The fault tolerance should be built around the software, > not into it. > > Not meaning to be too blunt about this, but if you have not had time to > create a watchdog for yourself, why should you expect someone else to do > the job for you?
Oh, I completely agree, that's my job. But if clam has stability issues, that needs to be addressed in clam. clamd->clamscan failover code would be short and sweet and the addition to clamdscan would be minimal compared to the cost of a complete code audit for clamd. The mail watchdog would be specific to our server and I am not inferring that any of you should write it. Either way, if clamd is buggy, it should not be my duty to build a workaround but I will if clamd hasn't stabilized. -- Eric Wheeler Vice President National Security Concepts, Inc. PO Box 3567 Tualatin, OR 97062 http://www.nsci.us/ Voice: (503) 293-7656 Fax: (503) 885-0770 _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
