Steve Wray wrote:
I know that in certain jurisdictions, reaching out to someone elses
computer (ie not your property) and disabling functionality on it
could constitute a criminal act.
I am also of the opinion that it was illegal under UK law.
I sincerely hope that someone somewhere under su
In message <1271831753.5073.28.ca...@localhost>, lists writes:
>For instance, if I go to a shop and they give me a radio free. I take
>that radio home and use it. If that shop then calls me up and says 'If
>you don't change that radio, I'm going to break it' it is a case of
>blackmail.
A better an
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:20:08 +0200
Maurice Lucas - TAOS-IT wrote:
> If your lock of the front door is very easy to break open do you want to
> change locks?
Sorry to jump in.
There is a pretty famous film made by Michael Moore where he tested exactly
this topic (closed doors) in Canada and foun
Christer Boräng wrote:
In message <1271831753.5073.28.ca...@localhost>, lists writes:
For instance, if I go to a shop and they give me a radio free. I take
that radio home and use it. If that shop then calls me up and says 'If
you don't change that radio, I'm going to break it' it is a case of
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:15:35 +0100
Simon Hobson articulated:
[snip]
I had thought by now that this thread would have died a natural death.
Obviously, I was mistaken. It has continued to pollute this forum for
nearly a week.
What has become conspicuously apparent is that if those who are doing
t
Jerry wrote:
> What has become conspicuously apparent is that if those who are doing
> the most complaining had spend even one percent of that time keeping
> their systems up-to-date and keeping themselves abreast of current
> development and deployment strategies with the software they employ,
>
> > In the interest of eliminating any further waste of my time or
> > computer resources, I am now instigating a kill filter on this
> > thread.
>
> +1
+1
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.n
> +1
+0x1
but if you *really* must...
http://www.acepolls.com/polls/1116421-clamav-eol-what-do-you-think
Steve
Sanesecurity
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Hello,
I guess this is a false positive?
So long,
Aiko
--
:wq ✉
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
After the last signature update, clam av stopped working on our woody
installation.
Is there no more support for this Debian Release?
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
> I guess this is a false positive?
decodes to:
width=1 height=1 f*r*a*m*e*b*o*r*d*e*r=0>
(remove *'s)
I guess this might hit on
If you are using 0.96 and want to whitelist it:
1. create a whitelist.ign2 file (for example)
2. insert the text: HTML.IFrame-39
3. restart clamd
4. Submit a sample
> After the last signature update, clam av stopped working on our woody
> installation.
Could be this...
"This move is needed to push more people to upgrade to 0.95"
See: http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/2009/10/05/eol-clamav-094/
Cheers,
Steve
Sanesecurity
_
> After the last signature update, clam av stopped working on our woody
> installation.
Your ClamAV is probably EOL. Please upgrade.
http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/2009/10/05/eol-clamav-094/
If your distro does not have a recent ClamAV package, you should be able to
build it from source. (I saw a
The update was made directly through clam AV, so this should be no problem
at all!
I haven´t tried to reinstall it yet,
but what I like to know is, is Debian Woody still supported with 0.96 or is
it turned down?
Thank you?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: clamav-users-boun...@lists.clam
On 04/21/2010 03:35 PM, h...@dip-systems.de wrote:
> The update was made directly through clam AV, so this should be no problem
> at all!
ClamAV signatures are not false-positive-free. No AV signatures are.
>
> I haven´t tried to reinstall it yet,
Won't change anything, the false positive is in
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 01:25:59PM +0100, Steve Basford wrote:
> > I guess this is a false positive?
>
> decodes to:
>
> width=1 height=1 f*r*a*m*e*b*o*r*d*e*r=0>
> (remove *'s)
>
> I guess this might hit on
>
> If you are using 0.96 and want to whitelist it:
Debian Volatile: 0.95
> 1. creat
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 03:38:52PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> Won't change anything, the false positive is in the database, just
> submit the sample so we can fix it.
We use clamav within a webscanner. The sample is the webpage itself:
- http://www.alice-dsl.de/
- http://www.lenovo.com/us/en/
- h
> We use clamav within a webscanner. The sample is the webpage itself:
> - http://www.alice-dsl.de/
> - http://www.lenovo.com/us/en/
> - http://www.sky.de/web/cms/de/abonnieren-paket-info.jsp
> - http://www.apple.com/
Yep, the signature will match those, as it's quite generic. So, it hits
those d
On 04/21/2010 04:00 PM, Aiko Barz wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 03:38:52PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
>> Won't change anything, the false positive is in the database, just
>> submit the sample so we can fix it.
>
> We use clamav within a webscanner. The sample is the webpage itself:
> - http://w
lists wrote:
Please show us some evidence that clamav made you install there free product on your server.
Why didn't you install "some other product"?
Is it your server? Then you have the power to install every product you want onto the machine but YOU choose Clamav and they didn't ordered/pay
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, lists wrote:
> Doesn't change a thing. If you threaten me with a course of action, if I
> fail to do something that is blackmail. It's nothing else. It does not
> matter if the product is free.
Oh come on. If I tell you you'll get wet when if you go out in the rain
without
Hello,
We're running clamav 0.95.3 with amavisd-new-2.6.1and postfix 2.5.5.
Sending a message with a virus attached clamav-daemon didn't find it. ->
Please take a look at the attachment.
When copying this msg onto the servre and scanning it manually withclamdscan
or clamscan the Virus is found
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 16:02, Thomas Herzog wrote:
>
> Hello,
> We're running clamav 0.95.3 with amavisd-new-2.6.1and postfix 2.5.5.
>
> Sending a message with a virus attached clamav-daemon didn't find it. ->
http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/sendvirus/
--
Please keep list traffi
wrote:
After the last signature update, clam av stopped working on our woody
installation.
Is there no more support for this Debian Release?
No, according to certain people on this list, you are a cretin, and
incompetent to even handle the off switch of a computer. If you check
the list a
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
Oh come on. If I tell you you'll get wet when if you go out in the rain
without an umbrella, is that blackmail ?
OK, so if I tell you that if you keep on going out without an
umbrella, then I'll throw a bucket of acid over you ... then by your
argument that's n
Jerry wrote:
I had thought by now that this thread would have died a natural death.
Obviously, I was mistaken. It has continued to pollute this forum for
nearly a week.
What has become conspicuously apparent is that if those who are doing
the most complaining had spend even one percent of that
Thank´s a lot
but my solution:
I remove manualy all files instaled by clamav and
start compilation again
so the first result was good
PASS: check_clamav
PASS: check_freshclam.sh
PASS: check_sigtool.sh
PASS: check_unit_vg.sh
PASS: check1_clamscan.sh
PASS: check2_clamd.sh
PASS: check3_clamd.sh
P
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Simon Hobson wrote:
>
> No, according to certain people on this list, you are a cretin, and
> incompetent to even handle the off switch of a computer. If you check the list
> archives - particular for threads "(no subject)" and "Those EOL tweets" you'll
> see that you are far
Quoting lists :
Doesn't change a thing. If you threaten me with a course of action, if I
fail to do something that is blackmail. It's nothing else. It does not
matter if the product is free.
This is not the definition of blackmail, in common usage or in law in most
areas.
In common usage, it
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Simon Hobson wrote:
>
> >
> > No, according to certain people on this list, you are a cretin, and
> > incompetent to even handle the off switch of a computer. If you check the
> > list
> > archives - particular for threads "(no subject)" and "Those EOL tweets"
> > you'll
On 21.04.2010 17:50, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, lists wrote:
>> Doesn't change a thing. If you threaten me with a course of action, if I
>> fail to do something that is blackmail. It's nothing else. It does not
>> matter if the product is free.
>
> Oh come on. If I tell
On 04/21/2010 06:44 PM, Eduardo wrote:
> Thank´s a lot
>
> but my solution:
>
> I remove manualy all files instaled by clamav and
> start compilation again
>
> so the first result was good
>
> PASS: check_clamav
> PASS: check_freshclam.sh
> PASS: check_sigtool.sh
> PASS: check_unit_vg.sh
> PASS
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Eray Aslan wrote:
> Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own
> is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal.
But that's not what happened.
==
Chris Candreva -- ch...@we
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> No, according to certain people on this list, you are a cretin, and
incompetent to even handle the off switch of a computer. If you
check the list
archives - particular for threads "(no subject)" and "Those EOL
tweets" you'll
see that you are far from alon
Quoting Simon Hobson :
You did not tell ME, therefore you did not have permission FROM ME
to makes changes to the way MY server operates.
By using the software, you took responsibility for how it works. From
the license:
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARR
h...@dip-systems.de wrote:
> Is there no more support for this Debian Release?
Debian Woody became old-stable in Jun 2005 and support was discontinued
since June 2006.
Your version of ClamAV is also obsolete.
--aCaB
___
Help us build a comprehensive Cl
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> > See above, that does NOT in any way constitute requesting my permission.
>
> Sure it does. Legally, in the US, when I want to do something that I'm
> legally required to inform the community about, all I have to do is take
> out an ad in the local
Quoting Simon Hobson :
Put bluntly, if people had admitted early on that perhaps it could
have been handled better, that perhaps they didn't consider all
classes/types of user, and that it is perhaps not unreasonable that
users could be a trifle annoyed ... then this **WOULD** have blown
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 17:26, Christopher X. Candreva
wrote:
>
> Let me drive this home. In the state of New York, until recently if the
> government wanted to use eminant domain to take your property, all they had
> to do was take out an ad in the paper. They do not need to track down the
> owne
On Wed, April 21, 2010 9:26 am, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>
>> > See above, that does NOT in any way constitute requesting my
>> permission.
>>
>> Sure it does. Legally, in the US, when I want to do something that I'm
>> legally required to inform
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote:
> Yes, amended to requre "certified main or personal delivery". Thus it
> appears that your example is diametrically opposed to your argument that
> only minimal notification is required.
No, my point is if you don't pay attention, you may wake up one morn
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Eric Rostetter
wrote:
>
> If you are on my property (say you rent or lease it from me), I can come
> in anytime.
>
>
> I'm not even trying to argue that this was or wasn't an illegal action.
> I'm just saying that the arguments are lame (calling it blackmail w
On Wed, April 21, 2010 10:48 am, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote:
>
>> Yes, amended to requre "certified main or personal delivery". Thus it
>> appears that your example is diametrically opposed to your argument that
>> only minimal notification is required.
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote:
> Doesn't agree with the example you provided, is all I'm saying, not
> without notification via "certified mail" or "personal delivery", which
> takes notification to a much higher standard and requirement then you have
> been trying to justify.
The exampl
On Wed, April 21, 2010 11:08 am, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote:
>
>> Doesn't agree with the example you provided, is all I'm saying, not
>> without notification via "certified mail" or "personal delivery", which
>> takes notification to a much higher standa
Quoting Jonny Kent :
Good arguments mostly Eric but I must take issue with your statement above
about owners right and renters.
Yeah, it was kind of vague, but meant to be about the issue of "trespass"
and not about actually invading a renters home or business.
What you can or can't do depen
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:13:31PM +0100, Simon Hobson said:
> Sarcasm or not, I think you are far off the mark - but in any case,
> I'm sure cretin was used as one description, as was incompetent. As
> for commie freeloader - I don't think you could be much further from
> the truth, but that's my
Quoting Stephen Gran :
Faced with an old release of software that will die if the team uses
new functionality due to a known bug, and people who will not upgrade
to the version that fixes this bug, and a reasonably urgent need to use
the new functionality, what exactly would you have done differ
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote:
> > For me, the lesson I take is to always be aware of the laws in your
> > locality. And the policies of the software you use.
>
> Oh yeah, and I bet you read the public notifications in your local paper
"Be aware of the laws" != "read the public notifica
On 4/21/10 11:16 AM, Stephen Gran wrote:
Faced with an old release of software that will die if the team uses
new functionality due to a known bug, and people who will not upgrade
to the version that fixes this bug, and a reasonably urgent need to use
the new functionality, what exactly would yo
At 12:12 -0400 21/4/10, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own
is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal.
But that's not what happened.
Wierd idea of "did not happen" - in what way does "we will push a
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Put bluntly, if people had admitted early on that perhaps it could
have been handled better, that perhaps they didn't consider all
classes/types of user, and that it is perhaps not unreasonable that
users could be a trifle annoyed ... then this **WOULD** have blown
over
Eric Rostetter wrote:
You did not tell ME, therefore you did not have permission FROM ME
to makes changes to the way MY server operates.
By using the software, you took responsibility for how it works. From
the license:
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRAN
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Simon Hobson wrote:
> - It is a simple fact that the purpose of this update was to make running
> software break.
I disagree with that statement because it's incomplete.. The purpose of this
update was to make running software break WITH A DESCRIPTIVE ERROR .
Important diff
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/21/mcafee-update--shutting-down-xp-machines/?sms_ss=email
:-þ
--FP
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Quoting Simon Hobson :
At 12:12 -0400 21/4/10, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own
is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal.
But that's not what happened.
Yes, it is what happened... People are ju
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Faced with an old release of software that will die if the team uses
new functionality due to a known bug, and people who will not upgrade
to the version that fixes this bug, and a reasonably urgent need to use
the new functionality, what exactly would you have done differe
wrote:
After the last signature update, clam av stopped working on our woody
installation.
Is there no more support for this Debian Release?
But Gianluigi Tiesi did post this a few days ago - dunno if it will
work for Woody though.
> Temporary fix for debian sarge, I suggest anyway to u
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Knowingly disabling running software on computers that is not your own
is not acceptable. It is immoral, unethical and perhaps illegal.
But that's not what happened.
Yes, it is what happened... People are just confused because of all
the bogus complaints like "the
Quoting Simon Hobson :
OK, how's this then. 9.5.3 (IIRC) came out about the time the notice
was published.
And handles the signature, so it doesn't matter.
It costs virtually nothing to add an extra DNS entry,
You don't know what it costs others to setup a DNS entry. Or to run
two signat
On 4/21/10 12:10 PM, Francesco Peeters wrote:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/21/mcafee-update--shutting-down-xp-machines/?sms_ss=email
:-þ
Received from McAfee earlier today:
Folks,
I have been collecting information as it has been flowing across the
wire on my side. If you are not the dir
Simon--
After ~20+ postings from you on this topic, you're not saying anything new.
Unlike the poor folks running McAfee on Windows who are having their machines
rendered unbootable due to a false positive with v5958 of their database, it
would require far less effort on your part to either upd
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:36:17 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
> I know that in certain jurisdictions, reaching out to someone elses
> computer (ie not your property) and disabling functionality on it
> could constitute a criminal act.
> I sincerely hope that someone somewhere under such a jurisdiction
>
Quoting Simon Hobson :
I'm confused - are you saying they did, or didn't shut down software
that people were running on their servers ?
I've always supported the claim that they did this. And I've always
countered the claims of the like of "shutdown my server" or "shutdown
my email" or such.
Spiro Harvey wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:36:17 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
I know that in certain jurisdictions, reaching out to someone elses
computer (ie not your property) and disabling functionality on it
could constitute a criminal act.
I sincerely hope that someone somewhere under such a
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
I disagree with that statement because it's incomplete.. The purpose of this
update was to make running software break WITH A DESCRIPTIVE ERROR .
Important difference.
The alternative being breaking with an incomprehensable hex ump
I think that's sums it up...
On 21.04.2010 22:56, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> If they want to stop supporting it with updates, that's fine and it
>> still leaves me in control of what I run and when I update it.
>
> True. And a perfectly legitimate stance to hold. But that doesn't mean
> sourcefire/clamav has to respect that s
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 21:19 +0100, Steve Basford wrote:
> I did see an interesting idea on the devel mailing list from David "I
> have a feature suggestion: Incorporate the version number in your
> DNS TXT records and download URLs. Your download mirrors can use
> symlinks in most cases (when ve
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:19:31 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
> Don't get distracted by issues such as "Oh those bad silly sysadmins
> out there who messed up, its really *their* fault not the fault of
> the Clamav developers!" That is just *not* helpful. The damage is
> already done; damage to peoples sy
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Steve Wray wrote:
> This is part of the attitude problem from many open source projects.
>
> They are (too often) run by technicians and programmers with no input from the
> business side.
IMHO, open source projects don't have a business side.
Opensource projects exist for
Spiro Harvey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:19:31 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
Don't get distracted by issues such as "Oh those bad silly sysadmins
out there who messed up, its really *their* fault not the fault of
the Clamav developers!" That is just *not* helpful. The damage is
already done; damag
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Christopher X. Candreva
wrote:
> IMHO, open source projects don't have a business side.
>
> Opensource projects exist for the developers to get the software they need,
> faster, through colaboration with others. If anyone else finds it usefull
> that's an added bo
Peter Bonivart wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Christopher X. Candreva
wrote:
IMHO, open source projects don't have a business side.
Opensource projects exist for the developers to get the software they need,
faster, through colaboration with others. If anyone else finds it usefull
th
On Apr 21, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Steve Wray wrote:
I know that in certain jurisdictions, reaching out to someone elses
computer (ie not your property) and disabling functionality on it
could constitute a criminal act.
I am also of the opinion that it was illegal under UK
I can't believe I've been suckered into this nonsense
This is part of the attitude problem from many open source projects.
They are (too often) run by technicians and programmers with no input
from the business side.
OH, lets not forget certain users
What the Clamav team did, I can't belie
On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
wrote:
After the last signature update, clam av stopped working on our woody
installation.
Is there no more support for this Debian Release?
No, according to certain people on this list, you are a cretin, and
incompetent to even handle th
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:51:00 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
> This would be ok if the distros maintained the servers which their
> distributed version of Clamav updated from.
> They don't. The responsibility in this case is that of those who
> maintain Clamav, not the distros.
> I would suggest that di
Spiro Harvey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:51:00 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
This would be ok if the distros maintained the servers which their
distributed version of Clamav updated from.
They don't. The responsibility in this case is that of those who
maintain Clamav, not the distros.
I would su
On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Jerry wrote:
I had thought by now that this thread would have died a natural
death.
Obviously, I was mistaken. It has continued to pollute this forum for
nearly a week.
What has become conspicuously apparent is that if those who are doing
the
On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> No, according to certain people on this list, you are a cretin, and
incompetent to even handle the off switch of a computer. If you
check the list
archives - particular for threads "(no subject)" and "Those EOL
Eray Aslan wrote:
Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav
developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place
for it.
Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no standing to
recover any damages and any suit you file would be subject to a
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 09:07 +1200, Spiro Harvey wrote:
> But the distro are the ones who gave you outdated unsupported software.
> Had they provided you with a newer package, you wouldn't have had this
> problem.
Spiro, you're missing the point of a distro completely. That is to
provide a function
I've misplaced the original post I made so I can't reply to it, however
I'd like to make a note for the archives what the problem is and to
thank Steve Basford and Edwin for the their help in finding it. Seems
like I had both a main.cvd and main.cld. I removed the main.cld file and
all is back to t
On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Here we go again, you are introducing something irrelevant to try
and justify your actions. Yes, I know what the licence says - but
that merely says I cannot expect support from you, and I can't
complain if it doesn't work. That still
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Spiro Harvey wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:36:17 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
I know that in certain jurisdictions, reaching out to someone
elses computer (ie not your property) and disabling functionality
on it
could constitute a criminal act.
I
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Peter Bonivart wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Christopher X. Candreva
wrote:
IMHO, open source projects don't have a business side.
Opensource projects exist for the developers to get the software
they need,
faster, through colaborat
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Spiro Harvey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:51:00 +1200
Steve Wray wrote:
This would be ok if the distros maintained the servers which their
distributed version of Clamav updated from.
They don't. The responsibility in this case is that of those
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote:
Eray Aslan wrote:
Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav
developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better
place
for it.
Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no standing to
recover
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Steve Holdoway wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 09:07 +1200, Spiro Harvey wrote:
But the distro are the ones who gave you outdated unsupported
software.
Had they provided you with a newer package, you wouldn't have had
this
problem.
Spiro, you're missing the point
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 17:00 -0700, Jim Preston wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Steve Holdoway wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 09:07 +1200, Spiro Harvey wrote:
> >
> >> But the distro are the ones who gave you outdated unsupported
> >> software.
> >> Had they provided you with a newer pa
Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote:
Eray Aslan wrote:
Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav
developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place
for it.
Yeah, I've got a legal opinion for you. You have no stand
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Jason Haar wrote:
>
>> ClamAV devs: your response was appropriate. I speak on behalf of the 99%
>> of sites unaffected by this. You can tell that as only 10 people seem to
>> be involved in this thread.
>
> Only 10 people who thought it wor
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote:
Eray Aslan wrote:
Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against
clamav
developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better
place
for it.
Yeah,
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Chris Knight wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Simon Hobson
wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
ClamAV devs: your response was appropriate. I speak on behalf of
the 99%
of sites unaffected by this. You can tell that as only 10 people
seem to
be involved in th
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Steve Holdoway wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 17:00 -0700, Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Steve Holdoway wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 09:07 +1200, Spiro Harvey wrote:
But the distro are the ones who gave you outdated unsupported
software.
Had they
Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote:
Eray Aslan wrote:
Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against clamav
developers or its parent company? Perhaps Germany is the better place
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote:
Eray Aslan wrote:
Does anyone have access to legal opinion for a lawsuit against
clamav
developers or its par
In message Simon Hobson
was claimed to have wrote:
>Here we go again, you are introducing something irrelevant to try and
>justify your actions. Yes, I know what the licence says - but that
>merely says I cannot expect support from you, and I can't complain if
>it doesn't work. That still doe
Simon Hobson wrote:
The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit
permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch
signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing an
update that is so different in purpose to what would normally be fe
Robert Wyatt wrote:
Simon Hobson wrote:
The **ONLY** defence I can think of is that they assumed an implicit
permission by virtue of the user running the update process to fetch
signature updates. That's a very tenuous thing to infer when pushing an
update that is so different in purpose to what
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
