shuttlebox wrote:
> On 10/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> []
>> When I reboot the machine, the directory /var/run/clamav disappears and
>> I have to manually recreate it.
>>
> /var/run is mounted as tmpfs which means it's not persistent over
> reboots. Choose anothe
Daniel,
I've been searching for how to configure this without much luck. Could
you point me in the right direction?
Again, it Sendmail on RH being called by clamav-milter.
Thanks!
Rich
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel T. S
On Mon, October 29, 2007 8:58 am, Gomes, Rich said:
> Daniel, I've been searching for how to configure this without much luck.
> Could you point me in the right direction? Again, it Sendmail on RH being
> called by clamav-milter.
That's not a setup I'm familiar with; though I would expect someone
Found some good documentation on it (right after I emailed you of course).
Does anyone know what is the recomended directory permissions on the quarantine
directory? I keep teetering between permission denied and insecure directory
errors when I restart the clamav-milter service.
-Ori
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel T. Staal wrote:
> On Mon, October 29, 2007 8:58 am, Gomes, Rich said:
>> Daniel, I've been searching for how to configure this without
>> much luck. Could you point me in the right direction? Again, it
>> Sendmail on RH being called by clamav-m
Gomes, Rich wrote:
Found some good documentation on it (right after I emailed you of course).
Does anyone know what is the recomended directory permissions on the quarantine
directory? I keep teetering between permission denied and insecure directory
errors when I restart the clamav-milter s
Hello,
A client of ours had a bunch of machines whose CPUs were maxed out
at 100% because of clam. Changing PhishingScanURLs to "no" from the
default "yes" dropped the load average from 70+ to about 3, and the
CPU usage from 100% to under 50%. This is under Linux, so it's not
the broken Solaris
John Rudd wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>
>> I can produce 2 examples of messages that cause the problem, in RFC822
>> format, for anyone who wants to experiment with them.
>
> I decided I'd just go ahead and make them available:
>
> http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/ClamAV/318642.mbox
>
> http://peop
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A client of ours had a bunch of machines whose CPUs were maxed out
> at 100% because of clam. Changing PhishingScanURLs to "no" from the
> default "yes" dropped the load average from 70+ to about 3, and the
> CPU usage from 100% to under 50%. This is under Linu
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A client of ours had a bunch of machines whose CPUs were maxed out
> at 100% because of clam. Changing PhishingScanURLs to "no" from the
> default "yes" dropped the load average from 70+ to about 3, and the
> CPU usage from 100% to under 50%. This is under Linu
John Rudd wrote:
> I can produce 2 examples of messages that cause the problem, in RFC822
> format, for anyone who wants to experiment with them.
I decided I'd just go ahead and make them available:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/ClamAV/318642.mbox
http://people.ucsc.edu/~jrudd/ClamAV/318715.mb
David F. Skoll wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A client of ours had a bunch of machines whose CPUs were maxed out
> at 100% because of clam. Changing PhishingScanURLs to "no" from the
> default "yes" dropped the load average from 70+ to about 3, and the
> CPU usage from 100% to under 50%. This is under Linux
On Monday 29 October 2007 18:07, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
> > John Rudd wrote:
> >> I can produce 2 examples of messages that cause the problem, in RFC822
> >> format, for anyone who wants to experiment with them.
> >
> > I decided I'd just go ahead and make them available:
> >
> >
Joe Clements wrote:
>> For what it is worth, Linux will only forge ahead in the market by
>> improvements
>> in 2 areas. One of them is security. I would like to see 1 security suite
>> which
>> has the capability to deal with ALL threats. Windows security has to have an
>> anti virus, anti troj
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:25:14 -0700
Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Clements wrote:
>
> >> For what it is worth, Linux will only forge ahead in the market by
> >> improvements
> >> in 2 areas. One of them is security. I would like to see 1 security suite
> >> which
> >> has the
Steve Holdoway wrote:
>> I don't see where Linux is unique in this regard. I also don't see why the
>> success of
>> Linux is particularly important vs BSD, Solaris, Windows, etc. But I suppose
>> that
>> discussion is for another forum.
>>
>
> I think the OP may beconsidering linux as a des
Steve Holdoway wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:25:14 -0700
> Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't see where Linux is unique in this regard. I also don't see why the
>> success of
>> Linux is particularly important vs BSD, Solaris, Windows, etc. But I suppose
>> that
>> discuss
17 matches
Mail list logo
