>
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:57:23 -0800 (PST)
> Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I accept your points Dennis, I'm just puzzled that people have so much
> trouble with freshclam daemons. I have used it for years and find it
> 100% reliable after a few problems with settings in the earl
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > What seems entirely bizarre about Fedora's ClamAV packages is that they
> > don't use freshclam in daemon mode, they use cron to run it. There's a
> > perfectly good tool provided that does all the nec
James,
James Kosin wrote:
> Unfortunately, if they are a brain-dead sysadmin, I drought they would
> know what to do with a VIRUS if ClamAV found one. Remember, ClamAV
> will find viruses, but, not clean them from infected programs.
This is a good point, I would argue that the default in this c
>
>
> What seems entirely bizarre about Fedora's ClamAV packages is that they
> don't use freshclam in daemon mode, they use cron to run it. There's a
> perfectly good tool provided that does all the necessary things to link
> freshclam to clamd, and they don't use it.
>
If you run freshclam as
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:10:27 -0700
"Gary V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Fedora package confuses the crap out of me. I gave up trying to figure
> out what they are trying to accomplish and installed from source.
What seems entirely bizarre about Fedora's ClamAV packages is that they
don't u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Redman wrote:
> It's seems that I have a philosophical difference here. There
> almost seems to be a "no pain, no gain" mentality, that installing
> ClamAV SHOULD be complex and difficult, you don't really deserve
> the software unless you've suf
Hello Jim,
> Instead the packages need me to learn some of the inner workings of
> ClamAV and FreshClam (forget editing the conf files, the packages don't
> even seem to work together out of the box), and since I really don't
> care about learning this, I'm going to get as far as making it wo
> I WANT to know NOTHING about ClamAV, I wish to remain ignorant. I even
> trust the folks who produce RPMs to come up with reasonable defaults for
> file locations, max sizes, etc. etc. etc. As _IS_ the case with just
> about every other install.
>
You have obviously been very successful in
Jim Redman wrote:
> Of all the packages I install (Fedora), clamav is the only modern
> package that fails to install and just work.
>
<<-- snip -->>
> Jim
>
You are ranting to the wrong group of people. ClamAV has nothing to
do with RPM packages or maintaining Fedora releases of the extra
packa
James,
James Kosin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Redman wrote:
Of all the packages I install (Fedora), clamav is the only modern
package that fails to install and just work.
<<-- snip -->>
Jim
You are ranting to the wrong group of people. ClamAV has nothing t
Steve,
Steve Holdoway wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:12:03 -0700
Jim Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
My take on your post is that installing software blindly on a multi-user system
is at best irresponsible. On a workstation on your desk, the effects of your
actions are limited to you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Redman wrote:
> Of all the packages I install (Fedora), clamav is the only modern
> package that fails to install and just work.
>
<<-- snip -->>
> Jim
>
You are ranting to the wrong group of people. ClamAV has nothing to
do with RPM packages or
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:12:03 -0700
Jim Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
My take on your post is that installing software blindly on a multi-user system
is at best irresponsible. On a workstation on your desk, the effects of your
actions are limited to you alone. This is not the case on a
13 matches
Mail list logo
