I'm running both as root... just to be sure, whether it matters or not,
I did a chown -R clamav on the directory that's being checked, but clamd
is running as root anyway (should it run as clamav?)
On Thu, 1 May 2003 14:20:29 -0400 "Shayne Lebrun" wrote:
> Clamdscan tells clamd to scan; so wh
Clamdscan tells clamd to scan; so what user is clamd running as?
What user are *you* running as when you run clamscan
manually?
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:10
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[clamav-
You gotta point. So I changed the command to be:
clamscan -r
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
Known viruses: 7286
Scanned directories: 36
Scanned files: 349
Infected files: 3
Data scanned: 5.94 Mb
I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes
Time: 3.528 sec (0 m 3 s)
clamdscan -r
--- SCAN SUMMARY
Did both report having scanned the same files/number of files?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [clamav-users] clamscan & clamd
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Ok, so that brings me
Thank you!
Ok, so that brings me to the question of what would be the advantage of
using clamdscan/clamd versus simply using clamscan.
I ran a simple test to compare the performance.
I ran clamdscan 5 times on the clamscan install directory, got an average
of 2.22 seconds
Then I ran clamscan 5
Hi
when you want to use clamscan with the --mbox attribute in 20030403 or
20030424, it is a good idea to remove the
puts ("FALSE");
and
puts ("TRUE");
lines in the continuationMarker() funktion in the mbox.c file and
recompile :)
If you do not, you will see several "TRUE" and "FALS
* Andreas Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030501 15:44]: wrote:
> After I have tested a little bit with it, I discovered that the memory
> leak is on my system only when I have enabled ScanMail in clamav.conf
> and clamd scans a .mbox file.
>
> I hope it helps to remove
* Fajar Arief Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030501 15:35]: wrote:
> Ah ... perhaps that explains why my system is still working well. I
> don't use ScanMail :)
..and I use it ;)
-Wash
--
Odhiambo Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "The box said &
Ah ... perhaps that explains why my system is still working well. I
don't use ScanMail :)
Andreas Schmitz wrote:
After I have tested a little bit with it, I discovered that the memory
leak is on my system only when I have enabled ScanMail in clamav.conf
and clamd scans a .mbox file.
After I have tested a little bit with it, I discovered that the memory
leak is on my system only when I have enabled ScanMail in clamav.conf
and clamd scans a .mbox file.
I hope it helps to remove this bug.
Best regards
Andreas Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I have tested clamd 20030424 with
* Fajar Arief Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030501 05:38]: wrote:
Maybe a *BSD problem.
> NO ...
>
> What is the problem anyway? Memory leak? Crash?
>
> I've been using it for 3 days now on Solaris and it seems to work fine.
> MUCH better than th
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030501 01:40]: wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> How stable are the snapshots? Should I go with stable and steer away from
> snapshots?
snapshot == bleeding_edge_code
stable != bleeding-edge_code
> When is 0.55 due to be released?
When To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's the case, then what is the client program for clamd? Is it
clamuko? I didn't quite understand.
clamdscan is the client programm, which need clamd.
Best Regards
--
Andreas
Schmitz
AS-DataService
Kastanienallee 24
D-54662 Speicher
NO ...
What is the problem anyway? Memory leak? Crash?
I've been using it for 3 days now on Solaris and it seems to work fine.
MUCH better than the previous or stable snapshot :(
ODHIAMBO Washington wrote:
* Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030430 17:39]: wrote:
Hi!
14 matches
Mail list logo
