On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 at 11:31:32 +, Payal Rathod wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:49:20AM +0100, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 at 3:39:16 +, Payal Rathod wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I got the general idea. But I am not getting what difference will
> > > it make to change,
>
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:49:20AM +0100, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 at 3:39:16 +, Payal Rathod wrote:
> >
> > Well, I got the general idea. But I am not getting what difference will
> > it make to change,
> > #define ZIPOSDET 20 to say 70
> >
> > What does this signify? Ass
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 at 3:39:16 +, Payal Rathod wrote:
>
> Well, I got the general idea. But I am not getting what difference will
> it make to change,
> #define ZIPOSDET 20 to say 70
>
> What does this signify? Assume I have a large log file of 100Mb and zip
> zips it to 15Mb will it be reje
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:47:22AM +, Payal Rathod wrote:
> People at qmail-scanner that it is not qmail-scanner issue, they say
> that the file is blocked by clamscan and wit exits with "virus" error
> code. Can you tell me what is wrong?
>
> I don't want to block files like this, I just wan
