On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 at 18:36:18 +0100, Rob wrote:
> I'm seeing a number of false positives on Worm.Gibe.F using clamav-0.70
> fully up to date (on FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT). I've scanned the apparent
> hits using up to date Kaspersky, F-Prot and Sophos and none find
> anything. This is probably becaus
good advice
done that
thanks
- Original Message -
From: "jjolet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] installation update require - trouble !
just a word of advice for the future.i'd have put symlinks in the
old
From: Tomasz Papszun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is an intended behaviour.
There was a long discussion in September 2003 whether we should detect
(and block) damaged samples of Worm.Gibe.F. In the end we decided: yes.
Such messages, though not containing executable viruses, are the result
of the viru
> I upgraded clamav to 0.70 from 0.70-rc on Friday. It worked until
> Saturday afternoon and stopped working, it started giving error in
> mail.log as
>
> Apr 24 13:58:27 mailserver clamav-milter[16797]: tempfile creation
> failed
Hi all,
Same problem again "tempfile creation failed". I rest
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill
> Maidment
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 6:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Problem with clamscan .vs. clamdscan
>
>
> Jim Maul wrote:
>
> >Because clamscan doesnt use cla
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 13:55, Pad Hosmane wrote:
> > I upgraded clamav to 0.70 from 0.70-rc on Friday. It worked until
> > Saturday afternoon and stopped working, it started giving error in
> > mail.log as
> >
> > Apr 24 13:58:27 mailserver clamav-milter[16797]: tempfile creation
> > failed
Off t
On Tuesday, 27.04.2004 at 09:38 -0400, Jim Maul wrote:
> > >Because clamscan doesnt use clamav.conf!! S many people dont
> > >seem to realize this.
> >
> > Perhaps it should to avoid any confusion!
>
> Perhaps, but this is not my decision.
/etc/clamav.conf -> /etc/clamd.conf ?
Dave.
--
Da
> > > >Because clamscan doesnt use clamav.conf!! S many people dont
> > > >seem to realize this.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it should to avoid any confusion!
> >
> > Perhaps, but this is not my decision.
>
> /etc/clamav.conf -> /etc/clamd.conf ?
>
The whole purpose of clamscan is to be a comma
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Ewart
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Problem with clamscan .vs. clamdscan
>
>
> On Tuesday, 27.04.2004 at 09:38 -0400, Jim Maul wrote:
So this morning clamd hung up. But then to add insult to injury
max-children of clamav-milter piled up behind it like a car wreck. This
patch adds the argument --max-child-wait=, which works like this.
* -1 wait 60 seconds for max_children and continue.(Old behavior)
* 0 or no value, no waiting,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 2:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Problem with clamscan .vs. clamdscan
>
>
>
>
> > > > >Because clamscan doesnt use clamav.conf!! S ma
Jim Maul wrote:
Exactly. I never said clamscan should use clamav.conf. I simply stated
that since clamd/clamdscan (and optionally freshclam as well) are the only
programs to use clamav.conf,
clamav-milter references it as well.
---
> >
>
> Exactly. I never said clamscan should use clamav.conf. I simply stated
> that since clamd/clamdscan (and optionally freshclam as well) are the only
> programs to use clamav.conf, perhaps it would avoid some confusion if it
> were to be called clamd.conf.
>
> Jim
Hello again,
My prev
Jim Maul wrote:
Because clamscan doesnt use clamav.conf!! S many people dont
seem to realize this.
Perhaps it should to avoid any confusion!
Perhaps, but this is not my decision.
/etc/clamav.conf -> /etc/clamd.conf ?
The whole purpose of clamscan is
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 21:19, Don Levey wrote:
> In case anyone is still following my story...
>
> I've narrowed things down a bit. The clamd daemon seems to be running
> properly, as evidenced by a proper run of clamdscan. Takes almost no
> time at all to scan one file, and 12 minutes in total
15 matches
Mail list logo
