Rick Macdougall wrote:
> > You could adopt a policy that "yes, password-protected zip files can
> > be assumed to be viruses" with the following clamd.conf option:
> Yes, I understand that but I don't think a 2 should be returned for a
> password protected zip file, 2 can be returned for any err
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Yes, I understand that but I don't think a 2 should be returned for a
> password protected zip file, 2 can be returned for any error, and a
> password protected zip file should not be an error. It should be 0
> for regular use, or 1 if I enable ArchiveBlockEncrypted, it sh
René Berber wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
One place I didn't look that I should have but still, is a password
protected zip file considered an error ? I can't really allow scans
that return a 2 to pass through (well I can but I don't think it's a
good idea).
It has been discused before that cla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
René Berber wrote:
man clamdscan:
[snip]
RETURN CODES
0 : No virus found.
1 : Virus(es) found.
2 : An error occured.
Thanks,
One place I didn't look that I should have but still, is a password
protected zip file considered an error
Rick Macdougall wrote:
> René Berber wrote:
>> man clamdscan:
>> [snip]
>> RETURN CODES
>>0 : No virus found.
>>
>>1 : Virus(es) found.
>>
>>2 : An error occured.
>
> Thanks,
>
> One place I didn't look that I should have but still, is a password
> protected zip file con
René Berber wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
I noticed today that clamdscan exits with an exit code of 2 instead of 0
when it encounters a password protected zip file, even with
ArchiveBlockEncrypted commented out.
Is this the recommended exit code, or have I encountered a bug ?
If this is the recom
