On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:25:42 +0300
ODHIAMBO Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm, I really want to know if it is the daemon or the lib that causes
> > the problems. If it is the lib, then I eventually will write a new (and
> > *stable*) daemon. If it is the lib, then I can not do much...
> > > Since today we are testing the snapshot daemon. We'll see...
> >
> > Sad to say that
> >
> > clamd / ClamAV version 20030829
> >
> > is not *so* stable either. Yesterday evening one of our six MX
> > machines grinded down on the zombified clamd process.
>
> Hmm, I really want to know
* Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030905 12:15]: wrote:
> > > Since today we are testing the snapshot daemon. We'll see...
> >
> > Sad to say that
> >
> > clamd / ClamAV version 20030829
> >
> > is not *so* stable either. Yesterday evening one of our six MX
> > machines grinded down on th
> > Since today we are testing the snapshot daemon. We'll see...
>
> Sad to say that
>
> clamd / ClamAV version 20030829
>
> is not *so* stable either. Yesterday evening one of our six MX
> machines grinded down on the zombified clamd process.
Hmm, I really want to know if it is the daemo
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:02:57PM +0200, Marian Eichholz wrote:
> Well, we have about 4 Mio mails/day on 6 machines, one being under
> Sobig.F-fire (560 worms/minute).
>
> In this situation clamd was *really* instable, breaking nearly daily (exim
> 4.22/exiscan/michael's exiscan-fixes).
>
> Sin
