On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Luca Gibelli wrote:
Hello Damian Menscher,
(BTW, this was reported in #clamav, here, and I saw it in my own logs.
So it wasn't just a fluke of someone's local DNS server getting confused
and giving the wrong info. Also, the fact that the timestamp was
correct indicates this was a deliberate change, not the appearance of
some ancient cached data from before 0.86.)
my only explanation is that one of the slave servers hasn't received any
update during the last 2 days for the cvd.clamav.net zone. I'll start
investigating.
If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen warnings that the timestamp
was outdated (it has to be newer than 3 hours ago)? Or does the slave
server update the timestamp itself? I'd suggest NOT having the slaves
update the timestamp.
Damian Menscher
--
-=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=-
-=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc:(217)333-0038 |#=-
-=#| 4602 Beckman, VMIL/MS, Imaging Technology Group:(217)244-3074 |#=-
-=#| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax:(217)333-9819 |#=-
-=#| The above opinions are not necessarily those of my employers. |#=-
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
