* Török Edwin wrote: > On 2011-02-28 18:29, Nathan Gibbs wrote: >> * Török Edwin wrote: >>> but apparently people running 0.95 care more about clamd "working" than >>> actually detecting malware. >>> >> 0.95 working equals more protection than 0.95 not working. > > Fair enough. > Would it be OK with you if 0.95 only got .hdb(MD5), .mdb (section MD5), > .fp (whitelist), and some simple .ndb updates? >
It personally wouldn't matter to me as I am running 0.97 on my servers. So why am I fussing? Last April when 0.96 was rolled out, some of out servers couldn't be upgraded. Fortunately, by August the ClamAV Team fixed whatever was broken in the first couple of 0.96 releases, and we were able to upgrade the remaining systems. However, if the DB issues had occurred then, I would have been one of the 0.95x users posting to this list. Of course, the list response to someone running an old version is UPGRADE you lazy, worthless, sysadmin wannabe. Sometime Upgrade isn't a realistic possibility in their shop, and amazingly has little to do with their intelligence, professional ability, or their parentage. :-) 11 months ago 0.95.x was the latest Clamav I just think that the support cutout should have a time constraint ORed with the existing version constraint. Just my 2 cents. > For any complicated ndb signature, and ldb/bytecode the engine could > require the sigmaker to use an engine version tag of at least 0.96.4. > > Then testing with latest engine version would show that the sig might > not load on 0.95. > That might work out OK. Of course, I only vaguely understand what you just said. LOL -- Sincerely, Nathan Gibbs Christ Media (315) 548-7647 http://www.cmpublishers.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
