I'm running 0.24 under Red Hat 7.2 and qmail-scanner 1.14.
clamscan has been working fine for weeks with a 20,000,000 byte memory
limit. This morning--perhaps after the virus database was updated--I
started seeing the following error:
CRITICAL: Can't allocate memory (2064 bytes).
I raised the
Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You must run the daemon as root (disable "User clamav" option).
Hopefully that's a temporary restriction...
-Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-m
Odhiambo Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It's a set-table value, AFAIK. In the two MLMs that I've used so far
>I know it is. I don't know about what these guys user here though;-)
>Looks like their own home-brewed one.
It's ezmlm.
Personally, I think subject prefixes are annoying and a w
[Please don't top-post. If you don't know what top-posting is, check
Google.]
Brian Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not at all, [subject tags] are ideal to use for email rules to sort
>into different folders.
No, they suck for filtering messages into different folders for
exactly the reason tha
Brian Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 13:30 16/10/2002, you wrote:
>>[Please don't top-post. If you don't know what top-posting is, check
>>Google.]
>
>sorry, a slip of the brain.
No problem.
>The RP on this message is meaningless via a vis the mail list.
>
>"Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Glenn Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, the only thing that stops me putting it on our production server
> is, being an O/S project how regular are the signature updates? And is
> there some kind of system in place to keep up with all the new viruses
> coming out?
If the only thing protecti
Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 05:25:41PM +0100, Daniel Wiberg wrote:
> > What are these modifications? Just "sed -e s/clamscan/clamdscan/
> > qmail-scanner-queue.pl"?
>
> exactly
OK, I tried that on my RH 8.0, clamav-20030317, qmail-scanner-1.16
system and go
Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> >
> > OK, I tried that on my RH 8.0, clamav-20030317, qmail-scanner-1.16
> > system and got:
> >
> > 19/03/2003 15:53:06:3757: --output of c
Ed Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Sill wrote:
>
> > This is pretty important limitation to using clamd/clamdscan. Is it
> > documented?
>
> Sure... run "man intro" on most any Unix system and read the part about
> p
The clamscan man page says:
--disable-cache
Disable caching and cache checks for hash sums of scanned files.
I've looked high and low via google, strace, looking at source code, conducting
tests,
and I see no sign of caching done by clamscan. Is this on the to-do list?
We'd
"G.W. Haywood via clamav-users" wrote:
>
> In the second scan, how did clamscan manage to do what it claims to
> have done in the time that it did it?
OK, you could have just said that the cache is internal to each invocation
of clamscan, but that helps.
> For further enlightenment, on one of y
Andrew C Aitchison via clamav-users wrote:
>
> No. clamD scans data passed to it by clamdscan, usually over a socket or
> pipe.
Ah... I missed INSTREAM in the clamd man page. Locally, though, surely
SCAN/CONTSCAN/etc, are nuch more efficient. And remotely, sending the
entire contents of the syst
"G.W. Haywood via clamav-users" wrote:
>
> There are ways around that, even if you don't want to run clamdscan
> (and clamd) as root - which I'd entirely understand.
Is --fdpass one of them? And --stream? Any others?
> >We've got about 3000 Linux systems that we'd like to periodically scan,
> >
Dave Sill via clamav-users wrote:
>
> > >Skipping multiple copies of the same file won't really help because
> > >the duplication is across systems, and because every file will be
> > >rescanned every time clamscan is run.
> >
> > That's not
It looks like my point was lost in the noise so I'll try to distill it.
I ran clamdscan twice on my /home (69k files) and got:
# clamdscan --fdpass /home
...
Time: 1428.433 sec (23 m 48 s)
# clamdscan --fdpass /home
...
Time: 1355.057 sec (22 m 35 s)
#
The cache only saved a little over a minut
"G.W. Haywood via clamav-users" wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, Dave Sill via clamav-users wrote:
>
> >It looks like my point was lost in the noise ...
>
> Sorry, I guess it was late and I was in a hurry to get to bed. :(
No worries. Thanks for you
"G.W. Haywood via clamav-users" wrote:
>
> Only 4GB on my clamd server.
>
> $ du -sh images/
> 16G images/
> $ find ./images -type f | wc -l
> 11586
> $ clamdscan images/
> ...
> Time: 12547.333 sec (209 m 7 s)
> ...
> $ clamdscan images/
> ...
> Time: 1477.782 sec (24 m 37 s)
That's a nic
On the desktop system:
$ find Mail -type f|wc -l
123719
# clamdscan --fdpass ~de5/Mail
Time: 2137.531 sec (35 m 37 s)
# clamdscan --fdpass ~de5/Mail
Time: 2138.778 sec (35 m 38 s)
So, still not seeing a benefit from the cache.
Both of my test systems are RHEL 7, so off to try another platform.
Dave Sill via clamav-users wrote:
>
> Both of my test systems are RHEL 7, so off to try another platform.
On Fedora 32:
# find ~dave/Mail -type f|wc -l
26671
# clamdscan --fdpass ~dave/Mail
Time: 932.395 sec (15 m 32 s)
# clamdscan --fdpass ~dave/Mail
Time: 489.627 sec (8
"G.W. Haywood via clamav-users" wrote:
>
> Perhaps try enabling libclamav debug logging.
I poked around a bit and didn't see an obvious way to do that, like a
configure option or a .h file. Couldn't really tell where it would be
logging.
> During your scans I suspect that ClamAV may be reaching
"Leveille, Gerald via clamav-users" wrote:
> Categorization: Unclassified
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know what would be the best way to do a virus scan of changed
> or new files only. I want to run a daily scan of changed and new files during
> weekdays and run a full scan on weekends.
>
> I di
21 matches
Mail list logo
