On our test machine, in US Pacific Daylight time (-0700).
...
Tue May 11 05:17:32 2010 -> bytecode.cld is up to date (version: 15, sigs:
2, f-level: 51, builder: nervous)
...
Tue May 11 06:17:53 2010 -> WARNING: getfile: Error while reading database
from db.us.clamav.net (IP: 199.184.215.2): Opera
On 12/23/09 9:57 AM, "Jim Preston" wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Jim Preston wrote:
>
>> Török Edwin wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-19 00:56, Jim Preston wrote:
>>>
Could I have a bad setting in the freshclam.conf?
>>>
>>> Why should the milter be affected by freshclam? Its only p
On 4/15/08 5:09 PM, "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>
>> So why am I dissecting that list like this? Just to show that blocking
>> or not blocking certain unusal characters in mail addresses is indeed a
>> policy decision which should not be forced by a piece of sof
On 10/3/07 10:45 AM, "Dennis Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 10:24 -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>> Can anyone offer a reason why the OP found a virus in the mbox file but not
>>> in the
>>> split out maildir messages? That kind of incon
On 10/3/07 7:26 AM, "Joao S Veiga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Pagamento" (payment) is a VERY common subject in Portuguese, and having a
> numeric
> link anywhere after that in your mailbox or in the same email causes the false
> positive. That signature is WAY too prone of false positives!
So
Problem seems not to be a ClamAV problem, but ours. Sorry for the noise.
On 8/24/07 2:12 PM, "John W. Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daily sigs: 4054; main 44. ClamAv 0.91.2-1
>
> Installed on CentOS-4.5 from Dag's packages. Freshly updated via the
>
On 8/24/07 2:12 PM, "John W. Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daily sigs: 4054; main 44. ClamAv 0.91.2-1
>
> Installed on CentOS-4.5 from Dag's packages. Freshly updated via the
> packages from the ancient 0.90-2 (also Dag's).
(of course
> For t
On 8/27/07 10:49 AM, "Kaplan, Andrew H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am prepared to upgrade our servers to version 0.91.2 of ClamAV, but I read
> several e-mails that mentioned
>
> operational problems with that version. Have these issues been resolved, or
> should I wait for the next version
Daily sigs: 4054; main 44. ClamAv 0.91.2-1
Installed on CentOS-4.5 from Dag's packages. Freshly updated via the
packages from the ancient 0.90-2 (also Dag's).
Called via pyclamav (rebuilt to matching libclamav) in our own code.
One sample: what looks like a proper Netflix shipping notice, whi
On 4/10/07 7:20 PM, "Fajar A. Nugraha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Drake wrote:
>> I'm seeing the same thing. Even my ClamWin puked.
>>
>> -Don
>>
>> On 4/10/07, Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Has the ClamAV backbone died?
>>>
>>>
> It might be related with main
On 3/11/07 11:02 PM, "Dennis Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I would never assume mail I receive has ever been scanned before,
> but that's not what is implied in what I said, is it? If we both scan a
> message one of us is redundant. I'm going to scan anyway, but hopefully
> because yo
On 3/8/07 8:43 AM, "Daniel J McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> You will probably need to read through the whole freshclam.conf and
> clamd.conf file to make those changes.
I learned a couple of emacs commands I hadn't found in 12 years of using
emacs, in the course of comparing our running c
On 3/2/07 10:10 AM, "Zivago Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/07 9:48 AM, "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Upgrade to the just-released clamav-0.90.1 which fixes this and a few
>>> other problems.
>>
>> Thanks. When dag updates (or this weekend, whichever happens second
On 3/2/07 9:48 AM, "Noel Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upgrade to the just-released clamav-0.90.1 which fixes this and a few
> other problems.
Thanks. When dag updates (or this weekend, whichever happens second) I'll
do so.
--John
___
Help u
On 3/2/07 8:25 AM, "Sean Pinegar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I trusted clamav for a long time but ran across an interesting problem today.
> I received an e-mail from a friend that included a powerpoint. I opened the
> powerpoint in linux and wine flagged it as a virus (not sure how wine knew
>
On 3/2/07 12:57 AM, "Zbigniew Szalbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The subject says it all - I wonder if it is possible to exclude certain
> local IPs from being scanned by clamd when they connect to my MTA?
As you now know, it's possible, since you've done it. Whether it's a good
idea is anoth
On 3/2/07 4:00 AM, "Zbigniew Szalbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> Of course ... but this is certainly not a clamav configuration
>> thing. Certainly you do have some piece of software to make your MTA
>> interacts with clamav. Whitelisting your local emails should be done on
>> this
On 3/1/07 10:55 AM, "Gerard Seibert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday March 01, 2007 at 12:45:20 (PM) John W. Baxter wrote:
>
>> The way our system operates, we learned of the problem well after the 700
>> permissions were set up, when I restar
On 3/1/07 9:00 AM, "Dennis Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:09:49 -0500
>> Craig Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> The failure happens when the perms on the daily.inc directory
>>> mysteriously become 700 and thus deny group reads. Since t
On 12/26/06 9:16 AM, "Dennis Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We found different solutions. But in nearly 30 years of doing this every
> day I can tell you I've never had a cron daemon fail
I saw one human-induced (the boss, not me) crond failure on BSDi many years
ago. The boss accidental
On 12/22/06 6:31 AM, "Stephan Brauss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I scan a 3.5GB file
> (in fact it is a VMWARE vmdk-file and not an archive)
I don't know the format of a VMWare file. Is it useful to scan it (or are
the contents enough unlike what a scanner knows about that problems are
un
On 12/21/06 10:28 AM, "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heck,
> even starting freshclam per cron, IMHO, is a hugely expensive affair
> (repeated startup/initialization cost). Just running a small daemonized
> freshclam (about 5M), which periodically does an extremely light-weight
> DNS query, is
On 1/23/06 12:25 PM, "Todd Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Originally the datacenter was Exodus, then it was bought by Cable &
> Wireless, then it was bought by Savvis.
I've been around email long enough that "Exodus" sends cold shivers up and
down my spine. Oh, wait...maybe that's due to th
On 1/19/06 7:41 AM, "JT Justman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably we should all start using ISO-8601 -MM-DD format since
> otherwise half the dates in the year are ambiguous. Call it a friendly
> compromise.
Which is what we started using in-house several months ago.
What's wrong with
On 1/9/06 11:18 AM, "John Jolet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the point here (and I agree with it) is the concept of
> defense in depth. Even if my server is scanning, why shouldn't my
> client go ahead and scan? just think how hard viruses would have to
> work if EVERY process that touc
On 1/9/06 7:08 AM, "John Kielkopf" wrote:
> For those that scan outgoing, how much has your outgoing filter actually
> caught?
We caught about 4 infections of Hybris ("Snow White", HaHa) last month. In
at least two cases (I didn't learn the resolution of the other two), it was
from a house gues
On 1/6/06 11:40 AM, "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with this almost entirely. You should absolutely try to 5xx refuse
> known-malicious email traffic, or if you have to accept it, silently file it
> away in a quarantine area for a knowledgeable human to review questionable
>
On 12/1/05 5:40 PM, "The Disc Shop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah okay, my bad. Misread the man clamd, thought QUIT was an option.
You are far from the only one (although I was trying PING, not QUIT).
Yes, it is certainly possible to read the man page correctly, but I didn't.
--John (one of
On 3/29/2004 7:12, "Sam Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * On 04-03-28, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>>> Now they say that Symantec and Sophos caught 100% of all the viruses,
>>> and ClamAV only got 54%!
>>
>> At least Symantec has full access to all WildList.org virus samples
>> because that "independen
29 matches
Mail list logo
