On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:26:05 -0500
Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:54:18 -0500
> > Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Any ideas on how to avoid this in the future? I'm running with
> >> ScanArchive and ScanMail (becaus
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 at 14:26:05 -0500, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
[...]
> The only thing I still don't understand is why clamscan is so
> much faster than clamdscan, and why clamscan only uses 25M
> of process memory while clamdscan uses over 298M of process
> memory during the scan:
>
> --- S
On 3/25/04 2:26 PM, "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- SCAN SUMMARY ---
> Known viruses: 20702
> Scanned directories: 0
> Scanned files: 1
> Infected files: 0
> Data scanned: 57.21 MB
> I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes
> Time: 11.989 sec (0 m 11 s)
> [13:[EMAIL PROTECT
Jesse Guardiani wrote:
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
The problem may be connected with already discussed and fixed
/dev/urandom issue. Please update to the latest CVS version.
I'll consider it. This is a production server, so I'm not incredibly
keen on running CVS code.
Actually, with ClamAV CVS v
On Tuesday 23 Mar 2004 3:06 pm, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> No, it's strictly text and just a LOT of characters. I can send it zipped
> or a small sample if anyone is interested. It has a lot of repeating
> characters, so it aught to compress rather well.
Yes, please e-mail me a copy.
-Nigel
--
N
