Simon Hobson schrieb:
> OK, how's this then. 9.5.3 (IIRC) came out about the time the notice
> was published. It costs virtually nothing to add an extra DNS entry,
> and the release could have had the default server URL changed for
> Freshclam to fetch updates. it wouldn't even have been a grea
Ian Eiloart schrieb:
> So, was that the pre-announcement which allows me to schedule time?
Looks like that.
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
"G.W. Haywood" schrieb:
> "-Q, --quarantine=EMAILADDRESS
> If this e-mail address is given, messages containing a virus or
> worm are redirected to it."
>
> However it doesn't say that if you use this option then infected mail
> will be accepted rather than rejected.
How would you redirect
"Graeme Nichols" schrieb:
> 2. Why has there been a change in the packaging of clamav? Freshclam is
> essential to the operation of clamav and *should* be in the same package as
> clamav.
Not necessarily. There are other ways to update your signature
database; you may copy it from a host connecte
Roberto Ullfig schrieb:
> Actually, what we see is that nearly all viruses of the form:
> Email.Phishing.RB-12...
> stopped being detected on Aug 9 15:31 on all 12 of our servers.
JFTR: Those are no viruses, but phishing mails, i.e. spam, not
malware.
Souza Simbota schrieb:
> Thank you for the help. I have copied clamd from
> /var/exim/clamav-0.90.1/contrib/init/RedHat/ to /etc/init.d
That's alright.
> and also to /usr/local/sbin.
You did copy the startup script named "clamd" to "/usr/local/sbin",
overwriting your clamd binary? That does not
"James Miller" schrieb:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not be picked up by clamav.
It is (and was) here:
| 2006-01-18 09:34:18 [...] H=p54a7c5f6.dip.t-dialin.net (amd2)
[84.167.197.246] F=[...] rejected after DATA: This message contains a virus
(Worm.VB-8).
"Worm.VB-8" is ClamAV's name for [EMAIL PRO
"Philip Craig" schrieb:
> Does anyone know when an rpm of clamav-0.87.1 will be available for SuSE
> distros? It seems the ones on ftp.suse.com are dated mid September and are
> still 0.87
They are since 2005-11-11:
| SUSE Security Summary Report
|
| Announcement
Roger Rustad schrieb:
> I'm assuming that my MX records would
> be something like:
>
> --MX record 0 pointed at whatever ISP is managing this box
> --MX record 0+ on my email servers
Not a good idea, as spam - and viruses - are often send to a low (the
lowest) priority MX.
-thh
Bart Silverstrim schrieb:
> That address had been hammering us over and over for awhile with
> sober.p. Now it's become quiet.
Yes. Now the infected hosts are sending out spam containing (very)
right-wing political propaganda.
> Perhaps we now know what happened to sober.p?
Yes. The same thin
10 matches
Mail list logo
