On Friday 05 Mar 2004 9:47 pm, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
> >> Try running 'clamscan --mbox email'
>
> Actually I should note that this almost completely fixes my
> problem. Now it's catching 99% of my viruses. The only
> question now is why it still misses 1 or 2 of them when
> the virus is found wh
Try running 'clamscan --mbox email'
Actually I should note that this almost completely fixes my
problem. Now it's catching 99% of my viruses. The only
question now is why it still misses 1 or 2 of them when
the virus is found when base64-decoding the attachment and
scanning that.
Thanks,
Dominic
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 at 12:49:45 -0800, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
> Ryan Moore wrote:
> >
> >Try running 'clamscan --mbox email'
>
> Oops, I didn't realize that.
>
> Same problem:
>
> >clamscan --mbox email
> email: OK
If it's with the current CVS version, you can submit a sample via our
submission
I was missing some virus's until I upgraded from .65 to .67.
Bounce back zipped virus's were slipping by.
Dominic Mazzoni said:
> Ryan Moore wrote:
>> Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also having the problem that Ron Snyder reported yesterday,
>>> where clamscan will mark a file as OK, but if I ex
Ryan Moore wrote:
Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
I'm also having the problem that Ron Snyder reported yesterday,
where clamscan will mark a file as OK, but if I extract the
attachment (just by base64-decoding it, NOT by unzipping it too),
then clamscan properly recognizes the virus (in this case, SCO.A).
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 at 10:57:12 -0800, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
> > I'm also having the problem that Ron Snyder reported yesterday,
>
> Ron's problem regarded milter if I saw correctly, so it may
> be something
> diferent. Anyway...
I thought it was milter related, but now I'm not sure. It may j
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 at 10:57:12 -0800, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
> I'm also having the problem that Ron Snyder reported yesterday,
Ron's problem regarded milter if I saw correctly, so it may be something
diferent. Anyway...
> where clamscan will mark a file as OK, but if I extract the
> attachment (
Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
I'm also having the problem that Ron Snyder reported yesterday,
where clamscan will mark a file as OK, but if I extract the
attachment (just by base64-decoding it, NOT by unzipping it too),
then clamscan properly recognizes the virus (in this case, SCO.A).
Actually clamscan
I'm also having the problem that Ron Snyder reported yesterday,
where clamscan will mark a file as OK, but if I extract the
attachment (just by base64-decoding it, NOT by unzipping it too),
then clamscan properly recognizes the virus (in this case, SCO.A).
Actually clamscan seems to be having this
