Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs sigtool reporting 696491

Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-03-19 23:38, Bill Landry wrote: >> Török Edwin wrote: >> >>> On 2009-03-19 22:54, Bill Landry wrote: >>> Along the same vein as my last question, again, clamd.log reports: Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) However, "sig

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs sigtool reporting 696491

On 2009-03-19 23:38, Bill Landry wrote: > Török Edwin wrote: > >> On 2009-03-19 22:54, Bill Landry wrote: >> >>> Along the same vein as my last question, again, clamd.log reports: >>> >>>Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) >>> >>> However, "sigtool --list-sigs" only lists 6

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs. Known viruses: 1159340

Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-03-19 23:36, Bill Landry wrote: >> Török Edwin wrote: >> >>> On 2009-03-19 22:46, Bill Landry wrote: >>> Just a curiosity question. The last database reload in my clamd.log file shows: Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures)

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs. Known viruses: 1159340

On 2009-03-19 23:36, Bill Landry wrote: > Török Edwin wrote: > >> On 2009-03-19 22:46, Bill Landry wrote: >> >>> Just a curiosity question. The last database reload in my clamd.log >>> file shows: >>> >>>Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) >>> >>> But when I use clamscan t

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs sigtool reporting 696491

Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-03-19 22:54, Bill Landry wrote: >> Along the same vein as my last question, again, clamd.log reports: >> >>Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) >> >> However, "sigtool --list-sigs" only lists 696491 signatures. It looks >> to me like it is listing a com

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs. Known viruses: 1159340

Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-03-19 22:46, Bill Landry wrote: >> Just a curiosity question. The last database reload in my clamd.log >> file shows: >> >>Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) >> >> But when I use clamscan to scam a file, it reports: >> >>--- SCAN SUMMARY -

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs. Known viruses: 1159340

On 2009-03-19 22:46, Bill Landry wrote: > Just a curiosity question. The last database reload in my clamd.log > file shows: > >Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) > > But when I use clamscan to scam a file, it reports: > >--- SCAN SUMMARY --- >Known viruses

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs sigtool reporting 696491

On 2009-03-19 22:54, Bill Landry wrote: > Along the same vein as my last question, again, clamd.log reports: > >Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) > > However, "sigtool --list-sigs" only lists 696491 signatures. It looks > to me like it is listing a combination of Official and Un

[Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs sigtool reporting 696491

Along the same vein as my last question, again, clamd.log reports: Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) However, "sigtool --list-sigs" only lists 696491 signatures. It looks to me like it is listing a combination of Official and Unofficial signatures, but obviously not listing ALL

[Clamav-users] ClamAV 0.95rc2 - 1159852 signatures vs. Known viruses: 1159340

Just a curiosity question. The last database reload in my clamd.log file shows: Database correctly reloaded (1159852 signatures) But when I use clamscan to scam a file, it reports: --- SCAN SUMMARY --- Known viruses: 1159340 Engine version: 0.95rc2 Why the differenc

[Clamav-users] sanesecurity sigs not working???

Hey, I'm running the latest subversion release of clamav (devel-r4964M) to filter mail using clamav-milter to sendmail 8.14.3. I've just installed the sanesecurity sigs and restarted clamd/clamav/sendmail, just to be sure. Using the test sigs ( test 2 and 3 as I don't have an html-based mail cl

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV and VirusTotal

> You are about to be one major rev behind (and are > currently 1 minor rev behind). I would reco that > you and ClamAV people get together and update / > configure for performance Yep, that would be great. For me updating means simply put the new binaries in one machine that releases the whol

Re: [Clamav-users] All quiet on the virus front?

fchan wrote: > I'm checking that the last virus definition update was on Friday > March 6, 2009 at 0500 version 9080. Also I noticed that my mail > server hasn't received and virus/malware for the last 12 hours. > Are the virus/malware writers taking a break or a calm before the > next big storm?

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV and VirusTotal

At 8:35 PM +0100 3/19/09, Julio Canto wrote: >Sarocet escribió: >> Julio Canto wrote: >>> Paul Whelan escribió: >>> must be the clamwin version then which is a strange 'official channel'. >>> Hi again, >>> You're wrong assuming that, th

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV and VirusTotal

Sarocet escribió: > Julio Canto wrote: >> Paul Whelan escribió: >> >>> must be the clamwin version then which is a >>> strange 'official >>> channel'. >>> >> Hi again, >> You're wrong assuming that, therefore you should not accuse us of using >> 'strange official

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV and VirusTotal

Julio Canto wrote: > Paul Whelan escribió: > >> must be the clamwin version then which is a >> strange 'official >> channel'. >> > > Hi again, > You're wrong assuming that, therefore you should not accuse us of using > 'strange official channels'. All engines and

Re: [Clamav-users] Extracting information from the new clamav-milter

Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > I have started testing the new clamav-milter. We had been doing some > specialized procvessing with the old one, and I am trying to see if we can > do this with the new one. > > We reject (5xx) viruses in the initial connection. We use the postmaster > notify fe

Re: [Clamav-users] test for SafeBrowsing?

On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 07:20 -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote: > Erwan David wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:55:14PM CET, Dennis Peterson > > said: > >> Moray Henderson (ICT) wrote: > From: Török Edwin [mailto:edwinto...@gmail.com] > >> Try using for the URL. > >> > > Is that a

Re: [Clamav-users] ClamAV and VirusTotal

On 18 Mar 2009 at 6:55, Julio Canto wrote: > Hi again, > You're wrong assuming that, therefore you should not accuse us of using > 'strange official channels'. All engines and parameters used - including > the ones from ClamAV - at VirusTotal are decided and provided with the > vendors involved.