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

2009-03-19 Thread Bill Landry
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

2009-03-19 Thread Török Edwin
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. Known viruses: 1159340

2009-03-19 Thread Bill Landry
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

2009-03-19 Thread Török Edwin
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

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

2009-03-19 Thread Bill Landry
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