> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:clamav-users-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jesse Guardiani
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:43 PM
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: [Clamav-users] Re: Clamav and qmail-scanner problem?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam DeForest wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, uid 508) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms
(clamdscan: 0.88/1235. spamassassin: 3.0.0. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms.
Clear:RC:0(220.175.180.80):SA:0(-1.2/5.0):
...
So, in my estimation, it looks to be that clamdscan is not using the
la
Sam DeForest wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, uid 508) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms
> (clamdscan: 0.88/1235. spamassassin: 3.0.0. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms.
> Clear:RC:0(220.175.180.80):SA:0(-1.2/5.0):
>
...
> So, in my estimation, it looks to be that clamdscan is not using the
> latest database rele
Sam DeForest wrote:
Does this look right?
I have been watching the full header information lately to see if mails are
being scanned with purpose. Im noticing that (or what seems like) Clamav is
using an older database. Here is a snippet of the header of one
message..
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Does this look right?
I have been watching the full header information lately to see if mails are
being scanned with purpose. Im noticing that (or what seems like) Clamav is
using an older database. Here is a snippet of the header of one
message..
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, uid 508) with qmail-sc
