On 2005-01-08 03:06:56 +0300, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
> 7-???-2005 21:32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter J. Holzer) wrote to ClamAV users ML
> :
>
> >> Infected machine _isn't_ _rare_ situation.
> PJH> No, but
> PJH> 1) I think real viruses which infect other programs are getting rare.
>
> Fo
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:18:27 +0100 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Peter J. Holzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) You don't need freshclam to do the updates, but if you update
> manually, you also have to restart clamd and check for errors
> manually. (And I guess most people here consider having
On 2005-01-08 11:24:49 +, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:18:27 +0100 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Peter J. Holzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) You don't need freshclam to do the updates, but if you update
> > manually, you also have to restart clamd and check for errors
> >
Peter Bonivart wrote:
> There's plenty of happy Postfix users running MailScanner, the Postfix
> author doesn't like the way MailScanner interacts with its queues and
> Postfix users who do not use MailScanner are quick to judge.
I never said there weren't. Working, however, and working reliab
Matt wrote:
I never said there weren't. Working, however, and working reliably in a
consistent and permanent fashion, are completely seperate things.
I have no dislike of MailScanner, but to recommend it to someone to
use with a certain MTA when it is known to run the risk of
losing|corrupting em
Peter Bonivart wrote:
> > Anyhow, back to my original point to the Lady who asked, MailScanner
^
> Thanks for telling me even though I didn't ask.
As you can see above, I wasn't mentioning it for your sake.
> > Postfix users who do
Peter Bonivart wrote:
Grow up. I gave pertinent, and truthful, advice to the question, that is
all.
To quote your earlier post:
"There's plenty of happy Postfix users running MailScanner, the Postfix
author doesn't like the way MailScanner interacts with its queues and
Postfix users who do not u
