Clearly it was announced that future signatures would not be checked against 0.97.x and that they might or might not work after 1June.
The last time you referred to was done purposely and announced because a new signature format was added which would not work at all with older engines, so those engines needed to be completely shut down by sending out that "poison pill." >From what I'm reading, it would appear that some new signature finally reached >a point which required more memory than could be allocated, which broke the >camel's back, so I don't believe this was done on purpose, but we all had >plenty of warning ahead of time that it probably would. Sent from Janet's iPad -Al- On Oct 23, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 22.10.16 22:53, Steve basford wrote: >> Upgrade... ie. >> https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/ClamAV_DB_update_leads_to_**UNCHECKED**_in_all_messages > > I wonder if this hasn't been known prior to the update. > Last time I remember a signasture was pushed that deliberately made clamav > crash, but it was announced. This time we only got reports that our > mailservers fail... _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
