On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 15:20 +, Nigel Horne wrote:
> > The sample you sent had no virus in it so I can't substatiate this claim.
> > Since I have no virus to test against I am unwary about making
I haven't actually received a virus with sort of boundary, I was just
running clamav over some me
On Friday 25 Feb 2005 15:09, Nigel Horne wrote:
> On Friday 25 Feb 2005 05:45, Richard Lyons wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 11:06 +1000, Richard Lyons wrote:
> >
> > > The problem is that clamav is treating the boundary specifier as
> > > a comment, with the result that it can't process messages
On Friday 25 Feb 2005 05:45, Richard Lyons wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 11:06 +1000, Richard Lyons wrote:
>
> > The problem is that clamav is treating the boundary specifier as
> > a comment, with the result that it can't process messages that
> > contain this type of boundary separator.
>
> Af
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 11:06 +1000, Richard Lyons wrote:
> The problem is that clamav is treating the boundary specifier as
> a comment, with the result that it can't process messages that
> contain this type of boundary separator.
After further testing it seems I was wrong, clamscan does detect
a
On Friday 25 Feb 2005 01:06, Richard Lyons wrote:
> Just testing 0.83 and I noticed what I think is a bug in the
> processing of MIME headers. We receive mail from a company
> whose MSA uses a content-type header as follows:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="(AlternativeBoundary)"
Look
