Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-04-08 22:40, Bill Landry wrote:
>> Török Edwin wrote:
>>
>> Hi Edwin,
>>
>>
>>> For 0.95.1 I was thinking about something like this (not yet implemented):
>>> S:X:F5B73C1339C8C9B2B9537F129D63F4ECA16E0346819FB417E643CDA7B9EFA09A
>>>
>> I am now running:
>>
>> cla
On 2009-04-08 22:40, Bill Landry wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
> Hi Edwin,
>
>
>> For 0.95.1 I was thinking about something like this (not yet implemented):
>> S:X:F5B73C1339C8C9B2B9537F129D63F4ECA16E0346819FB417E643CDA7B9EFA09A
>>
>
> I am now running:
>
> clamscan --version
> ClamAV 0.95.
Török Edwin wrote:
Hi Edwin,
> For 0.95.1 I was thinking about something like this (not yet implemented):
> S:X:F5B73C1339C8C9B2B9537F129D63F4ECA16E0346819FB417E643CDA7B9EFA09A
I am now running:
clamscan --version
ClamAV 0.95.1/9214/Wed Apr 8 09:46:42 2009
However, I tried this syntax in a fi
Török Edwin wrote:
>> Ok, I've reviewed the phishsigs_howto.pdf, but have failed in my efforts
>> to create a whitelist entry based on the hash
>
> "whitelist entry based on hash = per-entry whitelisting" I was referring
> to below, that will be in 0.95.1
>
>> (rather than using a
>> regular ex
On 2009-03-24 17:04, Bill Landry wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>
>> For whitelisting lada.cc you can use either:
>> X:(.+\.)?lada.cc([/?].*)?:(.+\.)?lada.cc([/?].*)?
>>
>> Or this one (but it will also whitelist URL mismatches from lada.cc to
>> anything, not recommended):
>> X:(.+\.)?lada.cc([/
Török Edwin wrote:
> For whitelisting lada.cc you can use either:
> X:(.+\.)?lada.cc([/?].*)?:(.+\.)?lada.cc([/?].*)?
>
> Or this one (but it will also whitelist URL mismatches from lada.cc to
> anything, not recommended):
> X:(.+\.)?lada.cc([/?].*)?:.+
>
> Or any other regular expression that w
On 2009-03-23 23:27, Bill Landry wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>
>> They can be whitelisted by using .wdb entries [1], which allows you to
>> use a POSIX regular expressions to whitelist any URL.
>> (the original URL, not the hash).
>>
>> Since the entries in safebrowsing.cld change often whitel
Török Edwin wrote:
> They can be whitelisted by using .wdb entries [1], which allows you to
> use a POSIX regular expressions to whitelist any URL.
> (the original URL, not the hash).
>
> Since the entries in safebrowsing.cld change often whitelisting based on
> position in the .cld wouldn't work
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
