I feel problem is not in config, but what clamd does when no config has
been set on that new function (tipical situation when you upgrade and
new features are available).
Even when example configs keep the state OFF, what happens when no
config has been set for that feature?
On minor releases
Christoph Cordes wrote:
> we thought a bit about this, and here's the solution that could
> satisfy everyone (TM):
> for clamd we could provide different configfiles, depending on the
> needs the user can choose between 3 - or more templates, like:
But you are missing the point. The problem
On 11/16/07, rick pim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David F. Skoll writes:
> > But you are missing the point. The problem is not the
> configfiles. Anyone
> > can easily edit a config file.
> >
> > The problem is that new behaviour suddenly appears when using an *old*
> > configfile. It's the h
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, rick pim wrote:
> who on earth upgrades from one beta to another and uses the same
> configfile???
If you're using clamscan, the config file doesn't enter into it, but the
default behavior still changes. You need to pass a flag to turn off the
phishing checks.
I get the whol
David F. Skoll writes:
> But you are missing the point. The problem is not the configfiles. Anyone
> can easily edit a config file.
>
> The problem is that new behaviour suddenly appears when using an *old*
> configfile. It's the hard-coded defaults in the source that are the problem.
i'm
rick pim wrote:
> this is pre-version-1.0 software: it's a beta. who on earth upgrades
> from one beta to another and uses the same configfile???
Clam developers: Do you consider Clam to be in beta still? I do not.
[...]
> post v1.0 i'd agree with you. this is beta software. expect surprises.
Hello,
we thought a bit about this, and here's the solution that could
satisfy everyone (TM):
for clamd we could provide different configfiles, depending on the
needs the user can choose between 3 - or more templates, like:
failsafe - most reliable
standard - higher chance for a fp but also
Hello all.
We've had some consultant make the spurious claim that Clam AV only scans for
'windows viruses' and is really only useful for 'scanning email'.
Despite the fact that I know this to be patently false, is there documentation
out there I can slap him with that clearly indicates that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> We've had some consultant make the spurious claim that Clam AV only scans for
> 'windows viruses' and is really only useful for 'scanning email'.
> Despite the fact that I know this to be patently false, is there
> documentation out there I can slap him
Gerard wrote:
>> On November 16, 2007 at 10:14AM Christoph Cordes wrote:
>
>> So, what do you think - is this a solution that would work for the
>> majority ? It would also be helpful - if this is a solution you could
>> agree one - if you make suggestions what to include in the different
>
> On November 16, 2007 at 10:14AM Christoph Cordes wrote:
> we thought a bit about this, and here's the solution that could
> satisfy everyone (TM):
Never going to happen!
> for clamd we could provide different configfiles, depending on the
> needs the user can choose between 3 - or more te
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> We've had some consultant make the spurious claim that Clam AV only scans for
> 'windows viruses' and is really only useful for 'scanning email'.
> Despite the fact that I know this to be patently false, is there
> documentation out there I can slap him w
rick pim wrote:
> who on earth upgrades
> from one beta to another and uses the same configfile???
Who on earth uses clamav in a way that requires a config file!? how
barbaric!
Any solution which only solves this problem via config file and/or
command line switches is an unacceptable solution.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> We've had some consultant make the spurious claim that Clam AV only scans for
> 'windows viruses' and is really only useful for 'scanning email'.
> Despite the fact that I know this to be patently false, is there
> documentation out there I can slap him
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/16/2007 02:52:34 PM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello all.
> >
> > We've had some consultant make the spurious claim that Clam AV
> only scans for 'windows viruses' and is really only useful for
> 'scanning email'.
> > Despite the fact that I know this to be pat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/16/2007 02:52:34 PM:
>
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> We've had some consultant make the spurious claim that Clam AV
>>>
>> only scans for 'windows viruses' and is really only useful for
>> 'scanning em
Well 'security expert' is just a title. Heck, anyone can call themselves
a "security expert" and if you just need "another" security expert to
refute his/her claim personally with some marketing jargon to do with
it, I'm sure anyone here would volunteer, in absence of that I will
volunteer as a
Michael Brown wrote:
> Well 'security expert' is just a title.
Absolutely. If a so-called "security expert" actually uses Windoze,
deduct 50 points. :-)
We use ClamAV, but no Windows -- our company is completely Linux-based.
I figure we're well ahead of 99% of so-called "security experts" with
On Nov 16, 2007 3:15 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello all.
>
> We've had some consultant make the spurious claim that Clam AV only scans for
> 'windows viruses' and is really only useful for 'scanning email'.
> Despite the fact that I know this to be patently false, is there
> documentat
19 matches
Mail list logo
