At 14.22 02/12/2004, you wrote:
>> ok, I know this, I am using noattach right now, that is doing his job
quite
>> well.
>> I am only trying to understand if it is possible to do with a single
>> program (clamav-milter) the job of two programs (clamav-milter and
noattach).
>
>I think that would be
Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
> >But you have the PIF in quarantine anyway. Couldn't you save CPU by
> >PIF-blocking the attachment, then scanning it later (during off-peak
> >hours, or in a nice process) to find out what virus it was?
>
> This is not to be happened, usually you block in advan
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 20:37 +0100, Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
> At 20.17 01/12/2004, you wrote:
> >Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
> >
> >> I know, but what if I want to consider them by default undesiderable ?
> >> I think clamav-milter should do the job quite easily.
> >> If it found such att
At 22.24 01/12/2004, you wrote:
>Jason Haar wrote:
>> However, a lot of sites complained. They actually looked at the logs and
>> they didn't like seeing that 44% of their quarantine events were "PIF
>> blocked" - they wanted to know WHAT VIRUS IT WAS.
>
>But you have the PIF in quarantine anyway.
Jason Haar wrote:
> However, a lot of sites complained. They actually looked at the logs and
> they didn't like seeing that 44% of their quarantine events were "PIF
> blocked" - they wanted to know WHAT VIRUS IT WAS.
But you have the PIF in quarantine anyway. Couldn't you save CPU by
PIF-blockin
Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
UNAUTHORIZED ATTACH TYPE
Stop... :-)
Do you think the idea is wrong ? In this way, as I said, you could
also lower the cpu load on the antivir box (you discard without check)
and you could fight better the new virus (If my sig doesn't detect,
probably the attach type
> I am only trying to understand if it is possible to do with a single
> program (clamav-milter) the job of two programs (clamav-milter
> and noattach).
Ideally, you wouldn't be using clamav-milter; you'd be using a milter that
does content filtering (amavis?), and as part of that content filterin
At 20.17 01/12/2004, you wrote:
>Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
>
>> I know, but what if I want to consider them by default undesiderable ?
>> I think clamav-milter should do the job quite easily.
>> If it found such attachment it threat like a virus name :
>> UNAUTHORIZED ATTACH TYPE
>> Stop... :-)
-Original Message-
At 12.08 01/12/2004, you wrote:
>> And now a wish:
>> Is possible to implement in clamav-milter or clamd itself the
>> possibility to define a list of suffix I'd like to consider as:
>> UNAUTHORIZED ATTACH TYPE
>
>That is not the job of a virus-scanner, it's the job
Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
> I know, but what if I want to consider them by default undesiderable ?
> I think clamav-milter should do the job quite easily.
> If it found such attachment it threat like a virus name :
> UNAUTHORIZED ATTACH TYPE
> Stop... :-)
That is what a content filter is for
At 12.08 01/12/2004, you wrote:
>> And now a wish:
>> Is possible to implement in clamav-milter or clamd itself the
>> possibility to define a list of suffix I'd like to consider as:
>> UNAUTHORIZED ATTACH TYPE
>
>That is not the job of a virus-scanner, it's the job of a content-
>filter.
I know, b
> And now a wish:
> Is possible to implement in clamav-milter or clamd itself the
> possibility to define a list of suffix I'd like to consider as:
> UNAUTHORIZED ATTACH TYPE
That is not the job of a virus-scanner, it's the job of a content-
filter.
-Nigel
__
Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
At 16.22 29/11/2004, you wrote:
>On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 13:00, Gareth Blades wrote:
>> I am running Suse Openexchange -> Amavis (clamd) -> Postfix.
>>
>> Mine lets through 24, 25, 27.
In my configuration:
FreeBSD, sendmail-milter, noattach, clamav-milter 0.80j I got
At 16.22 29/11/2004, you wrote:
>On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 13:00, Gareth Blades wrote:
>> I am running Suse Openexchange -> Amavis (clamd) -> Postfix.
>>
>> Mine lets through 24, 25, 27.
In my configuration:
FreeBSD, sendmail-milter, noattach, clamav-milter 0.80j I got no virus at
all...
Clamav got a
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 13:00, Gareth Blades wrote:
> I am running Suse Openexchange -> Amavis (clamd) -> Postfix.
>
> Mine lets through 24, 25, 27.
> Number 8 was blocked by file type but not detected by a virus.
> For 24 & 25 as they are not a virus I need to look at the amavis
> configuration I g
Upgrading to latest version of Mimedefang helped me.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Meni Shapiro
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 6:36 AM
To: ClamAV users ML
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Virus Tests from www.testvirus.org
Philip
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Ershler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 November 2004 06:17 AM
> To: ClamAV users ML
> Subject: [Clamav-users] Virus Tests from www.testvirus.org
>
> I am running the .80 release. Tonight I ran the current set
> of tests from www.testvirus.org.
>
On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 12:35, Meni Shapiro wrote:
> I'm running v 0.80 and made the test which let through:
> 5,8,22,23,25
>
> did i miss any thing?
> my server is:
> rh->sendmail->mimedefang->clamd
Try using sendmail->clamav-milter->clamd
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Meni Shapiro
--
Nigel Horne. A
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 12:35, Meni Shapiro wrote:
>
>
> Philip Ershler wrote:
> > I am running the .80 release. Tonight I ran the current set of tests
> > from www.testvirus.org.
> > Tests 4,5,7,8,17, and 19 got through. Any idea what's going on. The last
>
> I'm running v 0.80 and made the te
ok Express)
- Original Message -
From: "Nigel Horne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ClamAV users ML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Virus Tests from www.testvirus.org
On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 04:16, Philip E
Philip Ershler wrote:
I am running the .80 release. Tonight I ran the current set of tests
from www.testvirus.org.
Tests 4,5,7,8,17, and 19 got through. Any idea what's going on. The last
I'm running v 0.80 and made the test which let through:
5,8,22,23,25
did i miss any thing?
my server is:
r
On Thursday 25 Nov 2004 04:16, Philip Ershler wrote:
> I am running the .80 release. Tonight I ran the current set of tests
> from www.testvirus.org.
> Tests 4,5,7,8,17, and 19 got through. Any idea what's going on. The
> last time I ran this suite of
> tests on the .75 release, I seem to recall
Hello,
Philip Ershler wrote:
On Nov 24, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Tristan Griffiths wrote:
Philip Ershler wrote:
I am running the .80 release. Tonight I ran the current set of tests
from www.testvirus.org.
Tests 4,5,7,8,17, and 19 got through. Any idea what's going on. The
last time I ran this suite of
On Nov 24, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Tristan Griffiths wrote:
Philip Ershler wrote:
I am running the .80 release. Tonight I ran the current set of tests
from www.testvirus.org.
Tests 4,5,7,8,17, and 19 got through. Any idea what's going on. The
last time I ran this suite of
tests on the .75 release, I s
Philip Ershler wrote:
I am running the .80 release. Tonight I ran the current set of tests
from www.testvirus.org.
Tests 4,5,7,8,17, and 19 got through. Any idea what's going on. The
last time I ran this suite of
tests on the .75 release, I seem to recall it did much better.
Thanks for any thou
25 matches
Mail list logo
