On 04/24/2010 08:15 AM, jef moskot wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Török Edwin wrote: >> On 04/22/2010 01:02 PM, jef moskot wrote: >>> LibClamAV Error: CRITICAL: fmap() failed >>> LibClamAV Warning: fmap: map allocation failed >>> LibClamAV Error: CRITICAL: fmap() failed >>> LibClamAV Warning: fmap: map allocation failed >>> LibClamAV Error: CRITICAL: fmap() failed >>> ./Work/INPUTMBOX: local.sig.939.UNOFFICIAL FOUND >>> === >>> >>> clamscanning from the command line doesn't seem to cause this problem. >> >> Try scanning the same file mimedefang scans. > > With Jason Bertoch's help, I was able to add a -d parameter to the > mimedefang call, which forces it to leave its work directories hanging > around. > > I grabbed some samples (clean and dirty) and was able to scan all of > them from the command line without any noisy errors.
Does Mimedefang run clamscan under ulimit? (or is mimedefang itself constrained by some ulimits?) > > I then rebuilt 0.96 using --disable-llvm in the configure. No scary > warnings during compilation, although 'make test' didn't have much to say: > # make test > `test' is up to date. It is called 'make check', according to automake naming conventions: http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Standard-Targets.html#Standard-Targets > > It's running on the system now, without any complaints so far. It's > catching bad attachments, URLs, spam and such. > > However, it's not quiiiiite a fair comparison, since the Sanesecurity > signatures have been pared down since my first test. > > I'm going to add a couple more databases and see if I can get anything > to break. > > So, which is better (define "better" however you like)...running 0.95.3 > normally or 0.96 with --disable-llvm? The latter. Best regards, --Edwin _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
