Re: [Clamav-users] Clamav 0.96 is not matching md5 signatures when the offset is *

2010-05-31 Thread Balaji Ramani
Thanks a lot. I thought it was offset. Btw, we use third party signatures in the above said format. And this broke after we upgraded to 0.96. Is this a change introduced in 0.96 - that we should use the filesize and no wildchar ? Thanks, Balaji. >On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:49:58 +0530 Balaji Ramani

Re: [Clamav-users] Clamav 0.96 is not matching md5 signatures when the offset is *

2010-05-31 Thread Török Edwin
On 05/31/2010 11:21 AM, Balaji Ramani wrote: > Thanks a lot. I thought it was offset. > > Btw, we use third party signatures in the above said format. And this broke > after we upgraded to 0.96. Is this a change introduced in 0.96 - that we > should use the filesize and no wildchar ? No, it was a

Re: [Clamav-users] Reload process

2010-05-31 Thread aCaB
Nathan Gibbs wrote: > ARGH!!! > Thats all I'm going to say about that. Nathan, After a release, when we see see the bug flow stopping or calming down slightly all bugs (except those already clearly evaluated) are moved to unplanned. Shortly after (in this case tomorrow), unplanned bugs are re