Robin Lynn Frank said:
> Well, there goes that idea. The reason I asked is that if we have to
> take the server down for any reason, there can be a lot of mail from
> our backup that has to be processed when we are back up. We have a
> script that invokes clamscan to scan mail as it arrives an
Robin Lynn Frank said:
> Well, there goes that idea. The reason I asked is that if we have to
> take the server down for any reason, there can be a lot of mail from
> our backup that has to be processed when we are back up. We have a
> script that invokes clamscan to scan mail as it arrives an
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 at 10:55:41 -0800, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> On Thursday 15 January 2004 09:33, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 at 9:08:11 -0800, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> > > No this is not spam. My question is does anyone know the smallest size
> > > for virus/trojan/worm pay
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 at 9:08:11 -0800, Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
> No this is not spam. My question is does anyone know the smallest size for
> virus/trojan/worm payload around? We scan incoming mail and I am looking for
> a way to reduce resource useage by setting a lower limit on what is scanne
>No this is not spam. My question is does anyone know the
>smallest size for
>virus/trojan/worm payload around? We scan incoming mail and I
>am looking for
>a way to reduce resource useage by setting a lower limit on
>what is scanned..
That might be a bad idea. Consider the case of someone
