From: clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net on behalf of Nathan Brink
#Charles Gregory wrote:
#> More often than not, I see this kind of thinking as *policy* but without a
[...]
#>
#Wouldn't this easily break threading? In this case, the respondent
[...]
Not germane to clamav - please send fo
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:47:32 + (GMT)
reiner otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Unfortunately, nothing is fool proof to the properly motivated fool.<
>
>One of my customers, from a big international airline, I developed
>some SW for, told me: "There is nothing like users fault".
>After some th
On Wednesday 08 October 2008, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> 1. the requested functionality has been implemented in SVN
> (and will be included in 0.94.1):
>
> https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1213
Can you put URL to this patch ?
--
Regards,
Sergey
__
On Die, 2008-10-07 at 13:19 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > > I disagree. I think this would be VERY useful. Not for the people who
> > > don't want to RTFM, but for the people who would rather not have to wade
> > > through the docs and changelog to
Hi Guys
Please could we kill this thread.
I too have fallen victim to the changes made in the configuration files
which resulted in a serious whipping...
However, this being said, the fault lay by me for not checking up on the
changes that had been made and my assumption that the config files
Jerry Wrote:
>Seriously John if you are going to start with a new product, one that
>you readily admit you have not got a working knowledge of, you have got
>to RTFM. Create a jail and place your new program in it and then fire
>it up. Check the logs, see what is happening under the hood. Try
>dif
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:01:53 -0500
"John Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Dennis Peterson Wrote:
>> And you've missed the point that some people here have claimed that
>> their clamd process has silently failed and was off line for days,
>> and other such claims. No amount of hand holding f
On 2008/10/07 09:35 PM Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> 1. the requested functionality has been implemented in SVN
> (and will be included in 0.94.1):
Thanks a lot Tom.
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.ne
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:07:09 -0700
John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > However, doesn't this already exist with the upgrade notes? Take a look
> > here:
> > https://wiki.clamav.net/Main/UpgradeNotes093
> >
> > I don't know if they are this detailed on all of the re
John Rudd wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> With the tools we have available to us today there is no reason a failed
>> process should remain a secret.
>>
>
> Which does not explain the push-back on having the
> applications/services/daemons provide better documentation and triggers
> for h
Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
> With the tools we have available to us today there is no reason a failed
> process should remain a secret.
>
Which does not explain the push-back on having the
applications/services/daemons provide better documentation and triggers
for helping that effort, instead
John Smith wrote:
>
> Dennis Peterson Wrote:
>> And you've missed the point that some people here have claimed that
>> their clamd process has silently failed and was off line for days, and
>> other such claims. No amount of hand holding for creating config files
>> is going to make that probl
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> However, doesn't this already exist with the upgrade notes? Take a look
> here:
> https://wiki.clamav.net/Main/UpgradeNotes093
>
> I don't know if they are this detailed on all of the releases (the notes
> for 0.94 don't say much), but this looks like exactly what John was
Dennis Peterson Wrote:
> And you've missed the point that some people here have claimed that
> their clamd process has silently failed and was off line for days, and
> other such claims. No amount of hand holding for creating config files
> is going to make that problem better. That requires
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> So does Oracle, Apache, Python, Perl, MySQL, and a zillion other
>> products. Dead processes are widely accepted to not be chatty. Pardon my
>> Dennis Miller moment here, but I'm going to go ahead and blame the admin
>> if a critical process d
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Yet you, as a non-ClamAV-developer, are ranting about sysadmin incompetence
> and completely ignoring the real issue. The change DOES NOT AFFECT YOU in
> the slightest. So what the HECK is your problem?
Well, now that you make me think about it, there
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > However, it has missed the basic premise. The Question and Issue is that
> > ClamAV is failing without warning.
> So does Oracle, Apache, Python, Perl, MySQL, and a zillion other
> products. Dead processes are widely accepted to not be chatty.
You
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > I disagree. I think this would be VERY useful. Not for the people who
> > don't want to RTFM, but for the people who would rather not have to wade
> > through the docs and changelog to figure out if there are config changes.
> Let me help avoid preve
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Jerry wrote:
>
> > > From my experience, if an end user refuses to RTFM, adding
> > > additional reading material is not going to solve the problem.
> > > The needed documentation is all ready readily available. The
> > > motivation to fetch and rea
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> So does Oracle, Apache, Python, Perl, MySQL, and a zillion other
> products. Dead processes are widely accepted to not be chatty. Pardon my
> Dennis Miller moment here, but I'm going to go ahead and blame the admin
> if a critical process dies and they don't know about
John Smith wrote:
> On 2008/10/7 Charles Gregory wrote:
>> We only 'demand' the right to have our suggestions heard in their proper
>> context, and not held up against the idealistic standards of the lucky
>> few.
>
> I must say that for the disadvantaged, this has been a great debate.
> However
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Jerry wrote:
>> From my experience, if an end user refuses to RTFM, adding additional
>> reading material is not going to solve the problem. The needed
>> documentation is all ready readily available. The motivation to fetch
>> and read it are what is sorely lacking.
>
> I d
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, John Smith wrote:
> I must say that for the disadvantaged, this has been a great debate.
> However, it has missed the basic premise. The Question and Issue is that
> ClamAV is failing without warning.
To which the 'advantaged' respond that the warnings are in 'documentation'
On 2008/10/7 Charles Gregory wrote:
> We only 'demand' the right to have our suggestions heard in their proper
> context, and not held up against the idealistic standards of the lucky
> few.
I must say that for the disadvantaged, this has been a great debate.
However, it has missed the basic pre
Firstly, apologies for failing to remove my spam tags ([0.0]) in some
e-mails. I know it messes up threading. I try to remember. Sorry.
On 2008/10/07 12:05 AM Jerry wrote:
> Just out of morbid curiosity, who is holding a gun to your head...
Money. The 'gun' is money. Or, more precisely stated, t
Jerry wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:12:49 -0700
> John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >At the very least, when the config file and options change, the ClamAV
> >team should post a notice which explicitly lists (and only lists):
> >
> >1) new config items
> >2) removed config items
>
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 11:37 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> > Hopefully they're not running mail servers on the Internet elsewise they
> > could easily be considered derelict in their responsibilities.
>
> Ah. Yes, I must be 'derelict' because there is
On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 13:30 +0200, Colin Alston wrote:
[]
> I'm not all that interested if you have time for that. I don't, and
> neither do most end users regardless of your opinion about their
> intellect or ability.
To put it simple and direct: If you don't have time to read the
documenta
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:37:51 -0400 (EDT)
Charles Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Hopefully they're not running mail servers on the Internet elsewise
>> they could easily be considered derelict in their responsibilities.
>
>Ah. Yes, I must be 'dereli
Charles Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Hopefully they're not running mail servers on the Internet elsewise they
>> could easily be considered derelict in their responsibilities.
>
> Ah. Yes, I must be 'derelict' because there is only ONE sysadmin (me) and
> I go ho
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Hopefully they're not running mail servers on the Internet elsewise they
> could easily be considered derelict in their responsibilities.
Ah. Yes, I must be 'derelict' because there is only ONE sysadmin (me) and
I go home on weekends?
Heck, I'm not ev
--- Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am Sa, 4.10.2008:
Von: Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Betreff: Re: [Clamav-users] Stop it!
An: "ClamAV users ML"
Datum: Samstag, 4. Oktober 2008, 22:09
We are getting somewhat off-topic but:
On Fre, 2008-10-03
We are getting somewhat off-topic but:
On Fre, 2008-10-03 at 20:56 +, reiner otto wrote:
[]
> Agreed. Unfortunately, this is a general problem with OpenSource.
> As a programmer for already over 30 years, I am still wondering that
> the terms "Usability, user-friendliness, egoless-program
Jerry wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:04:22 -0700
> John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jerry wrote:
>>
>>> The sad part is that they will continue to blame others for their
>>> lackadaisical approach.
>> So, let me attempt to summarize your side of this here (and do correct
>> me if my s
Jerry wrote:
> 1) Learn to live with it.
A very fine attitude.
> 2) Write a patch/utility that suits your needs.
Forking software is expensive.
> 3) Write your own AV program
Even more expensive.
> 4) Use another AV program. There are several available, both OS/Free
> and commercial.
Even m
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> If you don't feel like you're getting your money's worth then the thing
> to do is spend it somewhere else. Vote with your pocket book. That of
> course begs the question: Are you getting your money's worth?
Yes, I'm getting my money's worth out of Clam. But rejecting
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:04:22 -0700
John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jerry wrote:
>
>>
>> The sad part is that they will continue to blame others for their
>> lackadaisical approach.
>
>So, let me attempt to summarize your side of this here (and do correct
>me if my summary is wrong, as I'
Colin Alston wrote:
> On 2008/10/04 10:55 PM Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> configuration problems. You need to classify those machines and knock
>> off some class-based templates and be done with it. I don't see that as
>> a vendor problem.
>
> Of course it's a vendor problem! :) You even just said
On Sam, 2008-10-04 at 22:38 +0200, Colin Alston wrote:
> On 2008/10/04 10:15 PM Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >> users to sit and audit each change. On Ubuntu for example there can be
> >> as many as 30 to 50 updates a week.
> >
> > Using a desktop distribution on a server was *your* decision. And y
On Sam, 2008-10-04 at 17:29 -0300, Aecio F. Neto wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > users could take the appropriate action ASAP instead of finding out or
> > > > having to check the logs on an hourly basis for problems.
> > >
> > > You'
On 2008/10/04 10:55 PM Dennis Peterson wrote:
> configuration problems. You need to classify those machines and knock
> off some class-based templates and be done with it. I don't see that as
> a vendor problem.
Of course it's a vendor problem! :) You even just said why. We'd have
to keep conti
Jerry wrote:
>
> The sad part is that they will continue to blame others for their
> lackadaisical approach.
So, let me attempt to summarize your side of this here (and do correct
me if my summary is wrong, as I'm not trying to build a strawman argument).
You're justifying the laziness of the
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> This seems a bit dramatic. Nobody is suffering. It takes but 10 minutes
>> 3 or 4 times each year to visit and modify the ClamAV config files, if
>> at all. Somebody's inner drama queen is getting the best of them here.
>
> If you are managing
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> This seems a bit dramatic. Nobody is suffering. It takes but 10 minutes
> 3 or 4 times each year to visit and modify the ClamAV config files, if
> at all. Somebody's inner drama queen is getting the best of them here.
If you are managing one machined or a few identicall
Aecio F. Neto wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
users could take the appropriate action ASAP instead of finding out or
having to check the logs on an hourly basis for problems.
>>> You're (by you I mean everyone agreeing here with how
On 2008/10/04 10:15 PM Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> users to sit and audit each change. On Ubuntu for example there can be
>> as many as 30 to 50 updates a week.
>
> Using a desktop distribution on a server was *your* decision. And you
> really *must* upgrade that much?
> Probably not really.
It'
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > users could take the appropriate action ASAP instead of finding out or
> > > having to check the logs on an hourly basis for problems.
> >
> > You're (by you I mean everyone agreeing here with how ClamAV fails)
> >
On Fre, 2008-10-03 at 20:37 +0200, Colin Alston wrote:
> On 2008/10/03 05:57 PM James Kosin wrote:
> > Colin Alston wrote:
> >> I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
> >
> > Hay, maybe the packagers could write a script or something to indicate a
> > problem with the
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:39:08 +0200
"Tonix (Antonio Nati)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A boring thread whose subject is stop it, does not stop!
Sorry about that. Perhaps I could interest you in the:
"Feature wish: "Virtual" POP3 folder with IMAP"
Now playing on the 'Dovecot' mailing list
Tonix (Antonio Nati) wrote:
> Strange...
>
> A boring thread whose subject is stop it, does not stop!
>
> Tonino
>
Thanks for playing!
dp
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Strange...
A boring thread whose subject is stop it, does not stop!
Tonino
Jerry ha scritto:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:32:42 -0700
> Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Colin Alston wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008/10/04 12:50 PM Jerry wrote:
>>>
From my experience, if an e
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:32:42 -0700
Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Colin Alston wrote:
>> On 2008/10/04 12:50 PM Jerry wrote:
>>> From my experience, if an end user refuses to RTFM, adding
>>> additional reading material is not going to solve the problem. The
>>> needed documentation i
Colin Alston wrote:
> On 2008/10/04 12:50 PM Jerry wrote:
>> From my experience, if an end user refuses to RTFM, adding additional
>> reading material is not going to solve the problem. The needed
>> documentation is all ready readily available. The motivation to fetch
>> and read it are what is so
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:27:56PM +0200, Colin Alston said:
> I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
>
> ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
> options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
> upgraded just stops wor
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Alston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ClamAV users ML"
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Stop it!
> On 2008/10/04 12:50 PM Jerry wrote:
>> From my experience, if an end user refuses to
Hi there,
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 John Rudd wrote:
> ...what they REALLY ought to do is supply a tool which reads old
> config files, and does something like a lint check.
I believe there was a similar tool published by a user a while ago.
Why not put this in bugzilla as suggested by Tomasz? (I hav
On 2008/10/04 12:50 PM Jerry wrote:
> From my experience, if an end user refuses to RTFM, adding additional
> reading material is not going to solve the problem. The needed
> documentation is all ready readily available. The motivation to fetch
> and read it are what is sorely lacking.
You're conf
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:12:49 -0700
John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>At the very least, when the config file and options change, the ClamAV
>team should post a notice which explicitly lists (and only lists):
>
>1) new config items
>2) removed config items
>3) config items whose syntax, sema
At the very least, when the config file and options change, the ClamAV
team should post a notice which explicitly lists (and only lists):
1) new config items
2) removed config items
3) config items whose syntax, semantics, or options changed, and how
4) supported but deprecated items, and what,
On 2008/10/04 12:17 AM Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:16:31 +0200
> Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What seems bogus is why someone would flippantly hand wave a problem
>> with the arbitrary reason that the version number is still <1.
>
> Why not? Google with their "Beta-4-Ev
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:16:31 +0200
Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What seems bogus is why someone would flippantly hand wave a problem
>with the arbitrary reason that the version number is still <1.
Why not? Google with their "Beta-4-Ever" approach has been doing it for
years. :-)
--
I am sure 99% of package managers have a blocklist of some kind.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
> "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> GESBBB wrote:
> >> > Is there any reason you cannot read the do
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
"Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> GESBBB wrote:
>> > Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to
>> > installing a newer version?
>
>Anyone using a package manager will have the new software installed
>before the
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:56 PM, reiner otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Clam developers need to do serious work in two areas: Security and
> usability.
> I hope they will.<
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately, this is a general problem with OpenSource.
> As a programmer for already over 30 years, I am s
>Clam developers need to do serious work in two areas: Security and usability.
I hope they will.<
Agreed. Unfortunately, this is a general problem with OpenSource.
As a programmer for already over 30 years, I am still wondering that the terms
"Usability, user-friendliness, egoless-programming"
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Eric Rostetter
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 1:09 PM
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Stop it!
>
> Quoting Ri
Colin Alston wrote:
> On 2008/10/03 05:57 PM James Kosin wrote:
>> Colin Alston wrote:
>>> I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
>>>
>> Hay, maybe the packagers could write a script or something to indicate a
>> problem with the current configuration when it is being i
On 2008/10/03 06:35 PM Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting "David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Where did I insult? (The OP was not me.)
>
> I didn't mean to imply you insulted them. I was pointing out that
> the OP did, and that it is inappropriate to do so. Didn't mean
> to imply anything
On 2008/10/03 05:57 PM James Kosin wrote:
> Colin Alston wrote:
>> I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
>>
>
> Hay, maybe the packagers could write a script or something to indicate a
> problem with the current configuration when it is being installed. Then
> users
Quoting "David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Where did I insult? (The OP was not me.)
I didn't mean to imply you insulted them. I was pointing out that
the OP did, and that it is inappropriate to do so. Didn't mean
to imply anything about you personally.
>> I have a problem with people _de
Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Not true. I have a package manager installed on all my machines. But they
>> do NOT do automatic updates... The above is only true of those who have
>> a package manager installed and configured to do automatic upgrades.
>
> But you are
Quoting "Aécio F. Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
>>> format
>>>
>>
>> No, they are quite capable of doing this, but the choose not to. That
>> is their right and privilege. And doing so might slow or stop progress.
Note, I
Quoting Rick Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Maybe you need to talk to exim about this then?
>
> Exim does exactly what it should when the clam daemon goes missing, it
I was going by the original posters comment that exim "does not
know how to gracefully handle failures of clamav daemon." Since
Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> The canonical situation
>> is one in which a small (but technically adept) company is responsible
>> for hundreds of Clam installations for technically naive customers.
> Maybe you should manage their installations for them?
We do! That's the point. WHEN (not IF) we ha
Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> I want two things out of ClamAV: (1) Security and (2) Least Surprise.
>> So far, it's not doing spectacularly well on either.
> ---snip---
>> team for their software and all their hard work. My comments are intended
>> merely to help improve
Hi,
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
>> options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
>> upgraded just stops working.
Why not have a scan for obsolete or bad parameter u
Quoting "David F. Skoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I partly agree with that, but I also think that ClamAV developers need
> to make their software more admin-friendly.
I'm sure they will eventually.
> The canonical situation
> is one in which a small (but technically adept) company is responsible
>
Colin Alston wrote:
> I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
>
Hay, maybe the packagers could write a script or something to indicate a
problem with the current configuration when it is being installed. Then
users could take the appropriate action ASAP instead of fin
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Not true. I have a package manager installed on all my machines. But they
> do NOT do automatic updates... The above is only true of those who have
> a package manager installed and configured to do automatic upgrades.
But you are on this mailing lis
Erwan David wrote:
> I never found comemrcial sftware being friendly to the user : bugs are rarely
> acknowledged;
> , licence management is a nightmare (should I se open, OEM or box licence in
> this configuration ?) etc...
>
One more reason free / open source should be friendly.
Why not? Tha
- Original Message -
>I want two things out of ClamAV: (1) Security and (2) Least Surprise.
>So far, it's not doing spectacularly well on either.
---snip---
>team for their software and all their hard work. My comments are intended
>merely to help improve the software, not as gratuitous co
Le Fri 3/10/2008, "Aécio F. Neto" disait
> IMHO, this is one of the reasons free software doesn't go to the masses.
> I have worked in both worlds - proprietary and free software - and this
> last one lacks in many aspects that proprietary code takes care of:
> being friendly.
> There is a myth
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
>> format
>>
>
> No, they are quite capable of doing this, but the choose not to. That
> is their right and privilege. And doing so might slow
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Eric Rostetter
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:20 PM
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Stop it!
>
> Quoting Col
Quoting Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Plenty of things have yet to go past 0.x and are many many years old.
So?
> Considering Clam is in really abundant use I think version numbers are
> little excuse, so it would be nice if sysadmins didn't get kicked in the
> groin every time a release h
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Well, maybe your "automatically upgrading" software needs improvment,
> or just maybe you should follow standard best practices and not do
> automatic upgrades on a critical/important production system?
I partly agree with that, but I also think that ClamAV developers need
Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to
>> > installing a newer version?
>
> Anyone using a package manager will have the new software installed before
> they can read the documentation.
Not true. I have a package
Quoting Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
> format
No, they are quite capable of doing this, but the choose not to. That
is their right and privilege. And doing so might slow or stop progress.
Remember, there is not eve
Quoting Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
> options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
> upgraded just stops working.
Well, maybe your "automatically upgrading" software needs improvment,
or just maybe
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> It IS a 0.x release. Once he hit 1.x I'll be a lot less forgiving, but as
> long as we're at 0.x I expect this sort of thing -- and still think it's
> better than the next best alternative.
Plenty of things have yet to go past 0.x and are many many years old.
Con
Yes, I know I am about to contradict myself.
> GESBBB wrote:
> > Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to
> > installing a newer version?
Anyone using a package manager will have the new software installed before
they can read the documentation.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Col
Colin Alston wrote:
> ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
> options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
> upgraded just stops working.
I agree that this is extremely hostile behaviour on the part of Clam
developers.
A friendlier approach:
GESBBB wrote:
> Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to installing a
> newer version?
Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
format, or doing the many other things I suggested that other things
abide by?
___
- Original Message
> From: Colin Alston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2008 6:27:56 AM
>
> I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
>
> ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
> options in such a way that breaks any
I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
upgraded just stops working.
This is further aggravated by the fact that Exim does not know h
95 matches
Mail list logo
