I would like to know the name of all virus on the Clamav DataBase...
Is it possible
Thank you!
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branchi
On Friday 09 January 2004 9:09 am, Marino, Santiago Maximiliano wrote:
> I would like to know the name of all virus on the Clamav DataBase...
> Is it possible
Yes - simply look at the plain Ascii files /usr/local/share/clamav/viruses.db
and viruses.db2 (you can convert the newer .cvd format
Hello..
Sorry for my terrible english.
I have a Linux server with Clam anti-virus with auto update and always I
receive a e-mail with subject "clam update", but the body in blank. I
want that e-mail show me the log about update (what is updated,..) I
know it's possible. Someone can help me??
We
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:32:06 -0200
Wesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello..
> Sorry for my terrible english.
> I have a Linux server with Clam anti-virus with auto update and always
> I receive a e-mail with subject "clam update", but the body in blank.
> I want that e-mail show me the log abou
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 08:58, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20040108 18:12]: wrote:
> > http://mikecathey.com/code/clamdwatch/
>
> How do I run the script?
>
Here's an install guide:
http://mikecathey.com/code/clamdwatch/INSTALL
I just started using this i
Okay, i apologize for such a basic question, but i guess i've been running
clamav 'blind' for some time now!
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
per my max-space setting of 250, if i understand it correctly, messages up
to 250K will be virusscanned. does that mean that larger messages simply
get pushed through the processing unscanned? the reason i ask is because it
seems as if it doesn't matter what size the message is, it gets scanned
just noticed that in the documentation - under 'certified software' -
there's mention of nclamd, with a URL of http://www.kyzo.com/nclamd . that
url fails, and going to their main page, i couldn't find any link to nclamd.
Paul Theodoropoulos
http://www.anastrophe.com
-
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
> -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
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTE
> 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
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
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, 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
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
>
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, 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
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" .
>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
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
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
> -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 difference between up and down is that on
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,
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
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
I used a Pentium 233MMX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] arquivos]# time /usr/local/bin/clamscan /etc/services
/etc/services: OK
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
Known viruses: 29951
Scanned directories: 0
Scanned files: 1
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 0.01 Mb
I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes
Time: 7.206 sec
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
>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
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:
> -
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 09:55:08 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> just noticed that in the documentation - under 'certified software' -
> there's mention of nclamd, with a URL of http://www.kyzo.com/nclamd .
> that url fails, and going to their main page, i couldn't find any link
> to nclamd.
Th
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:53:41 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> per my max-space setting of 250, if i understand it correctly,
> messages up to 250K will be virusscanned. does that mean that larger
> messages simply get pushed through the processing unscanned? the
> reason i ask is because it seems
Antony Stone wrote:
On Thursday 08 January 2004 12:21 pm, Payal Rathod wrote:
Hi all,
Recently I noticed that Norton AV clears more than 60,000 viruses,
maybe other virus scanners also have similar numbers, why do we have a
very less number?
2. Many vendors count minor variations in viruses as
Hi all
I am new that use clamav on my server suse-smp.
I install clamav.0-65 , when I use this command :
/usr/local/sbin/clamav-milter -blo /var/run/clmilter.sock
it saya
You must select server type (local/TCP) in /usr/local/etc/clamav.conf
What must I do ?
-by regards
-- Sophia
-
34 matches
Mail list logo
