Re: [clamav-users] Amavis or ClamAV? [SOLVED?]

2014-11-07 Thread Edgar Pettijohn
On 11/07/2014 03:20 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > On November 7, 2014 10:02:48 PM Edgar Pettijohn > wrote: > >> I didn't notice the "/parts" above and changed permissions and that >> seems to have fixed things. Sorry for the noise. > > Amavis does not reuse parts dirs, so its not a fix what you di

Re: [clamav-users] Amavis or ClamAV? [SOLVED?]

2014-11-07 Thread Benny Pedersen
On November 7, 2014 10:02:48 PM Edgar Pettijohn wrote: I didn't notice the "/parts" above and changed permissions and that seems to have fixed things. Sorry for the noise. Amavis does not reuse parts dirs, so its not a fix what you did ___ Help us

Re: [clamav-users] Amavis or ClamAV?

2014-11-07 Thread Benny Pedersen
On November 7, 2014 9:13:31 PM Edgar Pettijohn wrote: It looks like I finally got my config working correctly, however I now see the following errors. You have it poosible working in a insecure way, read the url below, for a solution that does not use 777 permissions Clamav user is a memb

Re: [clamav-users] Amavis or ClamAV? [SOLVED?]

2014-11-07 Thread Edgar Pettijohn
On 11/07/2014 02:13 PM, Edgar Pettijohn wrote: > It looks like I finally got my config working correctly, however I now > see the following errors. > > Nov 7 12:05:02 pettijohn amavis[35902]: (35902-04) Checking: > S8ZW_jrjqFJ3 [141.42.206.35] > -> > > Nov 7 12:05:02 pettijohn amavis[35902]: (

[clamav-users] Amavis or ClamAV?

2014-11-07 Thread Edgar Pettijohn
It looks like I finally got my config working correctly, however I now see the following errors. Nov 7 12:05:02 pettijohn amavis[35902]: (35902-04) Checking: S8ZW_jrjqFJ3 [141.42.206.35] -> Nov 7 12:05:02 pettijohn amavis[35902]: (35902-04) (!)run_av (ClamAV-clamd) FAILED - unexpected , output

Re: [clamav-users] Archive & signature precedence

2014-11-07 Thread Cedric Knight
On 06/11/14 16:25, Steven Morgan wrote: > Hi Cedric, > > I have a few questions/points: - Are you writing your own zmd/rmd > signatures? Yes. > - If so, have have you tried using .cdb signatures? I've noticed > in docs/signatures.pdf the zmd/rmd are annotated as "obsolete" and > the cdb format s