> -Original Message-
> From: Tomasz Kojm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] pretty basic question - clamscan
> vs clamdscan
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:36:18 +0200
>
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:36:18 +0200
Micha Silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > faster but clamd dies every so often. So we need the perl script,
> >
> > Which version of clamd ?
>
> I have installed 0.65
What does (exactly) "clamd dies every so often" mean ? Do you suspect
something ?
Best r
> -Original Message-
> From: Tomasz Kojm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] pretty basic question - clamscan
> vs clamdscan
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:04:50 +0200
>
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:04:50 +0200
Micha Silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> faster but clamd dies every so often. So we need the perl script,
Which version of clamd ?
Best regards,
Tomasz Kojm
--
oo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ClamAV.net
(\/)\. http://w
At 11:04 AM 1/10/2004, Micha Silver wrote:
Tomasz Papszun wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 12:07:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
please be attentive to attributions. I wrote none of the text in this
message, though it is attributed to me above.
$ clamscan Worm.Yaha.Y.msg
Worm.Yaha.Y.msg: OK
--
Micha,
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 14:04, Micha Silver wrote:
> So we need the perl script,
> clamdwatch, contributed by Mike running every minute as a cron job.
To be honest, I've only had clamd die ~3 times in almost a year of
production use. I don't consider this acceptable, but the alternatives
I
Tomasz Papszun wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 12:07:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ clamscan Worm.Yaha.Y.msg
Worm.Yaha.Y.msg: OK
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
Known viruses: 19802
Scanned directories: 0
Scanned files: 1
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 0.08 Mb
I/O buffer size: 131072
Hasn't there been problems with the stability of clamd for a long time?
Are those problems solved now?
I use MailScanner and it sends batches of files to scan so the speed
difference is negligible and I don't have to worry about if clamd has
stopped. Anyway, I find that it takes more time for S
At 01:11 PM 1/9/2004, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
A gigantic difference (as shown in my previous message) is caused by
wasting much time for launching the program (clamscan) and loading a
database into memory (while clamd has it loaded _already_).
But when you scan many files at once, you execute clamsca
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:07:16 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> which is really weird. clamdscan took 3 seconds *longer*, butit also
> found three times as many viruses as clamscan (that's weird in itself,
> since all the messages in the quarantine were put there by clamscan!)
That's because clamd
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 12:07:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> hmm. while i am seeing a gigantic difference in 'real' scanning of incoming
> messages, here's what i get from scanning my existing quarantine dir
> between the two:
>
> with 880 files in the quarantine,
>
> clamdscan:
> -
>Known viruses: 29948
It is still under 2 virus signatures in the db.
I think there is a discussion from yesterday or
the day before on how too correct the reading of virusdb.
Tjenesten mail.adventuras.no ble levert av Adventu
At 02:07 PM 1/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmm. while i am seeing a gigantic difference in 'real' scanning of
incoming messages, here's what i get from scanning my existing quarantine
dir between the two:
with 880 files in the quarantine,
When scanning a large number of files all at once, mos
sec (0 m 7 s)
real0m7.233s
user0m6.380s
sys 0m0.780s
[ ]'s
Mário
- Original Message -
From: "Tomasz Papszun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] pretty basic question - clams
I tried the test mentioned below and noticed my times were almost
identical. I found the cause of this to be that my clamdscan was
symlinked to clamscan so they were 1 and the same. Then i recalled a step
from the qmailrocks (www.qmailrocks.org) installation instructions that
says to rename clamd
At 11:53 AM 1/9/2004, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
A simple comparison (very rough, but shows the idea):
$ time clamscan /etc/services
/etc/services: OK
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
[...]
Data scanned: 0.01 Mb
I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes
Time: 0.721 sec (0 m 0 s)
real0m0.726s
user0m0.68
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 13:38:54 -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
>
[...]
> Very generally expect 10x or so speed improvement using clamdscan rather
> than clamscan with an MTA, but results will vary widely. Your reported
> scan time improvement seems quite possible.
>
A simple comparison (very rough,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom Walsh
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Clamav-users] pretty basic question - clamscan vs
> clamdscan
>
>
> > The diffe
At 11:31 AM 1/9/2004, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
>thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
>clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
>taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
>seconds, .7 seconds, etc - wh
At 01:19 PM 1/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:09 AM 1/9/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch
from clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather
than taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they
>thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
>clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
>taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
>seconds, .7 seconds, etc - which doesn't seem possible.
Actually, tha
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> following up on my own message here - the name clamdscan implies a daemon
> unto itself, that's why it seems - odd - if clamdscan is to be invoked the
Ah. Therein lies your problem. clamdscan means "scan by sending to clamd" .
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 14:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> following up on my own message here - the name clamdscan implies a daemon
> unto itself, that's why it seems - odd - if clamdscan is to be invoked the
> same as clamscan. If clamdscan is to run persistently, i'd expect it to be
> started up
At 11:09 AM 1/9/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch
from clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather
than taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in
.1 seconds, .7 seconds, etc -
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:09:34AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
> clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
> taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
>
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
> clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
> taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
> seconds, .7 seconds, etc
At 10:47 AM 1/9/2004, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 12:18, Jim Maul wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > i installed clamav via the instructions quite a long time ago.
> > i run it via
> > > qmail-scanner. clamd is running, and messages are scanned by
>
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 12:18, Jim Maul wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > i installed clamav via the instructions quite a long time ago.
> > i run it via
> > > qmail-scanner. clamd is running, and messages are scanned by
> > clamscan. so
> > > where does clamdscan come
> The difference between up and down is that one is up and one
> is down. Very profound, and not very helpful. Why bother
> answering if the answer in no way provides any explanation?
Why bother responding only to chide the response for its lack of content
with more banter with similarly lackin
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Christopher X. Candreva
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] pretty basic question - clamscan vs
> clamdscan
>
&g
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i installed clamav via the instructions quite a long time ago. i run it via
> qmail-scanner. clamd is running, and messages are scanned by clamscan. so
> where does clamdscan come in?? there's very little mention of clamdscan in
Use clandscan instead
31 matches
Mail list logo
