On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
> clamdscan solved that issue, although I would have appreciated this
> effect *before* I upgraded to a newer release.
This keeps comming up, perhaps it needs to be addressed in the docs.
Could you tell us why you used clamscan instead of clamd/clamdscan
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>
>> clamdscan solved that issue, although I would have appreciated this
>> effect *before* I upgraded to a newer release.
>
> This keeps comming up, perhaps it needs to be addressed in the docs.
>
> Could you tell us w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Rostetter wrote:
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
attention from the developers:
>
> They are well aware of it.
>
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
1.2 MB
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
> I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
> ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
> had worked until sometime ago). So I configured mimedefang for clamscan.
Maybe it's time to ask the mimedefang
Peter Boosten wrote:
>
> Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> 1) Yes, it is slow.
>> 2) Yes, it wasn't always like this (and hence you could down-grade to an
>> older
>> version if you needed).
>> 3) Newer versions are faster (see below).
>> 4) Yes, it still can be used for a mail server (I know, as I'm
Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>
>> I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
>> ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
>> had worked until sometime ago). So I configured m
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
> on everyone else.
Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamscan on
production ?
Every time this comes up the answer is "don't do it". If that is the answ
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail. Neither is
entirely ideal, but we should take the wide vari
jef moskot wrote the following on 6/18/2007 12:19 PM -0800:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>>
>
> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
> that the other option is a daemon that c
On Jun 18, 2007, at 12:19 PM, jef moskot wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>
> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
> that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail.
>
Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>
>> Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
>> on everyone else.
>
> Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamscan on
> production ?
Not exac
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jef moskot
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>
>I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
>that the other option is a daemon that can pot
On Monday 18 June 2007 2:35 pm, Dave Warren wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jef moskot
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> >> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
> >
> >I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycle
Randall Perry wrote:
> Having trouble building with clamav-milter.
>
> Initially I did just:
> ./configure --enable-milter --prefix=/opt/local
> make
> make install
>
> It installed fine. But running the startup script I noticed
> clamav-milter wasn't installed.
>
> So, installed the l
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
> /home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
>
> I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Anyone with
> any ideas?
Because you didn't RTFM. :-)
clamdscan passes the file name to clamd, which
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>
> > I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
> > ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
> > had worked until sometime ag
On Monday 18 June 2007 5:04 pm, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
> > /home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
> >
> > I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Anyone
> > with any ideas?
>
> B
jef moskot wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>
> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
> that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail. Neither is
> entirely ideal, but
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
>>> on everyone else.
>> Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamsca
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, at 12:19 PM, jef moskot wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
>> that the other option is a daemon that ca
Chris wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 5:04 pm, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
>>> /home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
>>>
>>> I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Any
Quoting Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> clamscan has a purpose. As others have also said - YMMV. A very lightly
> loaded mailserver (~100 msgs/day) shouldn't have a lot of problems with
> clamscan. At least not with the 0.88.x version.
We've been using it, and deliver hundreds of thousan
Quoting Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Not exactly. But I did say that I am using it in production. Now, if it
>> is a good way or not, that is a subjective matter.
>
> Not exactly - it is measurable. And it is really bad.
No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on your available resour
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> Not exactly. But I did say that I am using it in production. Now, if it
>>> is a good way or not, that is a subjective matter.
>> Not exactly - it is measurable. And it is really bad.
>
> No, it _IS_ subjective, and it d
Quoting Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on your available resources. And in
>> my opinion, with my resources, it is tolerable. Your milage may vary.
>
> Sorry, no. For any particular machine you can measure the performance of
> each clamav client an
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>>
>>> I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
>>> ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
>>>
Henrik Krohns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:45:30PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> if you have sufficient system resources, and are willing to
>> tolerate slow delivery times (up to 4 minutes on my system, with clamscan
>> on 0.90.3 for example).
>
> I'm just amazed by all the nitpicking i
John Rudd wrote:
> (* "questionable"? "not idea"? sure.. unacceptable to the point of
> firing someone? that's incompetent management)
That should have said "not ideal", not "not idea".
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://
28 matches
Mail list logo
