On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:59:21PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] s/clamscan/clamdscan/ sound familiar?
Hi,
That's definitely my fault. I will update the documentation about clamdscan
and try to make it more compatible with clamscan. Anyway most software is
able to use clamd its
On Wednesday 19 Mar 2003 6:52 pm, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>
> clamd still doesn't work properly on FreeBSD due to the broken BSD pthreads
I have a fix for this which I'll be sending you ASAP.
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Kojm
-Nigel
--
Nigel Horne. Arranger, Composer, Conductor, Typesetter.
NJH Music,
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Sill wrote:
> Ed Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Sill wrote:
> >
> > > This is pretty important limitation to using clamd/clamdscan. Is it
> > > documented?
> >
> > Sure... run "man intro" on most any Unix system and read the part abou
Ed Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > This is pretty important limitation to using clamd/clamdscan. Is it
> > documented?
>
> Sure... run "man intro" on most any Unix system and read the part about
> permissions, uids, etc., ... ;-)
Very funny, Ed
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Sill wrote:
> Date: 20 Mar 2003 11:27:05 -0500
> From: Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [clamav-users] Clamav and qmail - your experiences and
> opinions
>
> Tomasz K
Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> >
> > OK, I tried that on my RH 8.0, clamav-20030317, qmail-scanner-1.16
> > system and got:
> >
> > 19/03/2003 15:53:06:3757: --output of clamscan was:
> > /var/spool/qmailscan/sws51048107
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:25:41PM +0100, Daniel Wiberg wrote:
> > > What are these modifications? Just "sed -e s/clamscan/clamdscan/
> > > qmail-scanner-queue.pl"?
> >
> > exactly
>
> OK,
Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:25:41PM +0100, Daniel Wiberg wrote:
> > What are these modifications? Just "sed -e s/clamscan/clamdscan/
> > qmail-scanner-queue.pl"?
>
> exactly
OK, I tried that on my RH 8.0, clamav-20030317, qmail-scanner-1.16
system and go
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:25:41PM +0100, Daniel Wiberg wrote:
> What are these modifications? Just "sed -e s/clamscan/clamdscan/
> qmail-scanner-queue.pl"?
exactly
> Is current clamdscan in a working state? It segfaults for me when
> archive scanning is enabled on FreeBSD 4.6.2, and 0.54 doesn
What are these modifications? Just "sed -e s/clamscan/clamdscan/
qmail-scanner-queue.pl"?
Is current clamdscan in a working state? It segfaults for me when
archive scanning is enabled on FreeBSD 4.6.2, and 0.54 doesn't support
archive scanning AFAIK.
//daniel wiberg
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
qmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [clamav-users] Clamav and qmail - your experiences and
opinions
> Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:49:28 PM, Tomasz wrote:
>
> >> - not require a recompilation of qmail (would supply a qmail-queue
> >&
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:49:28 PM, Tomasz wrote:
> qmail + qmail-scanner - modified to use clamdscan instead of clamscan
> should work fine.
One more thing, Tomek. I've searched through the archives but I did
not find any information about how to perform this modification. Was
this ever discu
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 11:49:41 PM, Tomasz wrote:
> OK I tried it again and it worked this time (I have no idea why it
> didn't want to patch before 8/), so now off to reinstalling the qmail
> binaries, getting qmail-scanner and testing it - thanks everyone!
Again big thanks to everyone, clam
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 8:29:51 PM, Cory wrote:
This is getting a bit offtopic, but I hope you won't mind...
> Applying the QMAILQUEUE patch is extremely easy and simple.
> cd qmail-1.03
> wget http://qmail.org/qmailqueue-patch
> patch < qmailqueue-patch
OK I tried it again and it worked this
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 20:01, Tomasz Nidecki wrote:
> Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:11:27 PM, Jeffrey wrote:
>
> > I found that Postfix, amavis-new, and clamav ran fine on a 133MHz 486
> > with 40MB RAM. I get 300-500 messages/weekday.
>
> Hmm, so it's not that bad - I have a Pentium MMX 166 so it
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:59:40PM +0100, Tomasz Nidecki wrote:
> > qmail + qmail-scanner - modified to use clamdscan instead of clamscan
> > should work fine.
>
> Thx, but qmail-scanner demands a recompilation of qmail with the
> qmail-queue patch 8[...
Applying the QMAILQUEUE patch is extremely
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:49:28 PM, Tomasz wrote:
>> - not require a recompilation of qmail (would supply a qmail-queue
>> script which would call the scanner and then the original qmail-queue)
>>
>> - take little memory, be streamlined and fast.
> qmail + qmail-scanner - modified to use cla
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:11:27 PM, Jeffrey wrote:
> I found that Postfix, amavis-new, and clamav ran fine on a 133MHz 486
> with 40MB RAM. I get 300-500 messages/weekday.
Hmm, so it's not that bad - I have a Pentium MMX 166 so it should be
allright (and I must expand my RAM soon anyways).
-
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:55:41PM +0100, Tomasz Nidecki wrote:
> - not require a recompilation of qmail (would supply a qmail-queue
> script which would call the scanner and then the original qmail-queue)
>
> - take little memory, be streamlined and fast.
qmail + qmail-scanner - modified to use
Quoting Tomasz Nidecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi, all 8].
>
> I'm currently working on setting up clamav on my server (a small local
> network). My MTA is qmail. I was wondering what are your opinions and
> experiences with the two working together?
>
I found that Postfix, amavis-new, and clamav
Hi, all 8].
I'm currently working on setting up clamav on my server (a small local
network). My MTA is qmail. I was wondering what are your opinions and
experiences with the two working together?
I found two possible options of using clamav with qmail and I was
wondering if you know of any others
21 matches
Mail list logo
