On Saturday 03 Jul 2004 6:05 am, Ken wrote:
> Hi,
> LibClamAV Warning: Unknown encoding type "quoted -printable"
> LibClamAV Warning: Unknown encoding type "plain"
>
> Does that mean those messages were not scanned?
No it means that a message has been sent that does not confirm to the relavant
st
Recall that I was asking the list recently how to deal
with getting 400 MB a day of the zafi.b virus in my
mailbox. I can filter out my mailbox with a procmail
script, followed by using clamscan and procmail, but
my hosting service isn't yet able to do it for me.
It turns out that they had clamav
Michael D. Crawford wrote:
Recall that I was asking the list recently how to deal
with getting 400 MB a day of the zafi.b virus in my
mailbox. I can filter out my mailbox with a procmail
script, followed by using clamscan and procmail, but
my hosting service isn't yet able to do it for me.
It turn
Michael D. Crawford wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Is there a way to filter out the most obvious viruses without using
> very much CPU time, so that the processing required to scan all the
> remaining messages with clamav wouldn't be so great?
To the clamav devel team: how does the scanner determi
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
"Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It turns out that they had clamav working in their
> email processor for a little while, but had to disable
> it because it used so much CPU time that the host
> wasn't able to keep up with its load. Ironic
On Sunday 04 Jul 2004 12:00 am, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 14:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
>
> "Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It turns out that they had clamav working in their
> > email processor for a little while, but had to disable
> > it because it used so much CPU time
I would like to append to this that, cheap boxes are good, but they
should be cheap boxes with fast harddrives, or some type of memory file
system scheme. My experience has been that a fast hard drive will
drastically increase the scanning performance. And as mentioned
earlier, clamdscan.
T
Cody Baker wrote:
I would like to append to this that, cheap boxes are good, but they
should be cheap boxes with fast harddrives, or some type of memory file
system scheme. My experience has been that a fast hard drive will
drastically increase the scanning performance. And as mentioned
earli
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 at 14:40:24 -0700, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
[...]
> It turns out that they had clamav working in their
> email processor for a little while, but had to disable
> it because it used so much CPU time that the host
> wasn't able to keep up with its load.
As it has been already w
> I
> think that you should get more details about their
> setup and then you
> can search documentation and mailing lists of those
> particular programs.
I don't know how they had it set up. I'll ask.
I don't normally do any kind of administration of the
hosting service's server. I'm just tryi
I am currently running a RH9 system with 2.4.21
kernel. I have upgraded the kernel to 2.4.26, but clamav will not
work. I have recompiled under the new kernel but for some reason I cannot
get clamdscan or clamscan to work. I keep getting “Segmentation
fault” in the log file. Is there an
11 matches
Mail list logo
