> So ClamAV as a package won't silently 'not work' for the safety of
> users - and this has been the justification for their approach to
> this issue. But at the very same time they are recommending a setup
> which will silently not scan mail if there's a problem with ClamAV.
I guess it depends
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> And you can cut the crap about "well you should have configured your
system to not stop when ClamAV stopped" - that's rubbish because it's
already been made perfectly clear right at the start of one of these
threads that the project team consider any configu
> Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> >> In response to your example, that was a DOS attack and is illegal.
> >> Microsoft updates have causes systems including servers to fail and
> >> crash, should you be petitioning to have Microsoft prosecuted under
> >> this law?
> >>
> >
> > It happens.
> >
> > Anyw
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
In response to your example, that was a DOS attack and is illegal.
Microsoft updates have causes systems including servers to fail and
crash, should you be petitioning to have Microsoft prosecuted under
this law?
It happens.
Anyway, the fact is that you keep com
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Simon Hobson wrote:
> And you can cut the crap about "well you should have configured your
> system to not stop when ClamAV stopped" - that's rubbish because it's
> already been made perfectly clear right at the start of one of these
> threads that the project team consider
> In response to your example, that was a DOS attack and is illegal.
> Microsoft updates have causes systems including servers to fail and
> crash, should you be petitioning to have Microsoft prosecuted under
> this law?
It happens.
Anyway, the fact is that you keep comparing two different thing.
Jim Preston wrote:
Over here, if I step out into traffic and get hit it is my fault.
But suppose you walk out across a crossing where the "WALK" is lit
(green man over here) and the traffic has a red light - but someone
screams through ignoring the red light and gets you ?
That is a better
At 02:03 PM 4/17/2010, Jim Preston wrote:
Ralf Quint wrote:
How can people trust any Open Source software if someone else
decides at will which operational systems are being shut down,
which services are being interrupted.
By configuring your systems to be tolerant of such failures of
softwa
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Jim Preston wrote:
...snip..
According to this reasoning, I know of website that consistently causes
browsers to shut down. This website is a legitimate business site, Should
this site be prosecuted under this law?
In response to your examp
lists wrote:
> Anything else I can help you with?
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
--
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?
___
Help us build a comprehen
Ralf Quint wrote:
At 01:14 PM 4/17/2010, Jim Preston wrote:
First, anyones system that stopped sending mail, it was not a
malicious act just that their system can not handle the signature
update that was sent out.
Secondly, they all had both the chance to update before it happened
OR configur
Simon Hobson wrote:
Jim Preston wrote:
According to this reasoning, I know of website that consistently
causes browsers to shut down. This website is a legitimate business
site, Should this site be prosecuted under this law?
In response to your example, that was a DOS attack and is illegal.
Jim Preston wrote:
According to this reasoning, I know of website that consistently
causes browsers to shut down. This website is a legitimate business
site, Should this site be prosecuted under this law?
In response to your example, that was a DOS attack and is illegal.
Microsoft updates ha
At 01:14 PM 4/17/2010, Jim Preston wrote:
First, anyones system that stopped sending mail, it was not a
malicious act just that their system can not handle the signature
update that was sent out.
Secondly, they all had both the chance to update before it happened
OR configure their systems to
lists wrote:
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 13:14 -0700, Jim Preston wrote:
lists wrote:
Lots of interesting views. Yes, people should have updated. However,
this act of maliciously killing critical servers to score a point is the
kind of thing malware writers do. It is also illegal in the UK un
Simon Hobson wrote:
lists wrote:
Lots of interesting views. Yes, people should have updated. However,
this act of maliciously killing critical servers to score a point is the
kind of thing malware writers do. It is also illegal in the UK under the
computer misuse act. Insisting they update 'or
lists wrote:
Lots of interesting views. Yes, people should have updated. However,
this act of maliciously killing critical servers to score a point is the
kind of thing malware writers do. It is also illegal in the UK under the
computer misuse act. Insisting they update 'or else' is blackmail. H
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 13:14 -0700, Jim Preston wrote:
> lists wrote:
> > Lots of interesting views. Yes, people should have updated. However,
> > this act of maliciously killing critical servers to score a point is the
> > kind of thing malware writers do. It is also illegal in the UK under the
> >
lists wrote:
Lots of interesting views. Yes, people should have updated. However,
this act of maliciously killing critical servers to score a point is the
kind of thing malware writers do. It is also illegal in the UK under the
computer misuse act. Insisting they update 'or else' is blackmail. He
Lots of interesting views. Yes, people should have updated. However,
this act of maliciously killing critical servers to score a point is the
kind of thing malware writers do. It is also illegal in the UK under the
computer misuse act. Insisting they update 'or else' is blackmail. Here
we have two
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 03:29 +0200, Gianluigi Tiesi wrote:
> On 16/04/2010 2.03, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 22:27 +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The EOL signature for ClamAV <= 0.94.2 is now live (daily 10749).
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> > I'd be grateful for a simp
On 16/04/2010 2.03, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 22:27 +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The EOL signature for ClamAV <= 0.94.2 is now live (daily 10749).
>>
>> Best regards,
> I'd be grateful for a simple method of getting havp working under lenny
> now...
>
> Steve
>
add
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 22:27 +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The EOL signature for ClamAV <= 0.94.2 is now live (daily 10749).
>
> Best regards,
I'd be grateful for a simple method of getting havp working under lenny
now...
Steve
--
Steve Holdoway
http://www.greengecko.co.nz
MSN: st...@gre
Hi,
The EOL signature for ClamAV <= 0.94.2 is now live (daily 10749).
Best regards,
--Edwin
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
24 matches
Mail list logo
