In message <004701cadd95$cfec35b0$6fc4a1...@biz> "Giampaolo Tomassoni"
was claimed to have wrote:
>> And if the server owners / sysadmins feel that sending mail is more
>> IMPORTANT than sending clean mail, they do not not need to install any
>> AV software and their mail system will happily send
In message <9203dabf-59fb-4462-9ca5-7d90fb265...@edisoninfo.com> Gary
MacKay was claimed to have wrote:
>
>On Apr 16, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>
>> Quoting Gary MacKay :
>>
>>> OK, who's the mental midget that decided to just up
>>> and kill all installations of clamav ???
>>
>>
In message <4bce64a1.8040...@cwa.co.nz> Steve Wray
was claimed to have wrote:
>The thing is that there are a few little issues here that, as points of law
>are not clear yet. In what follows words like 'vendor' may not be used
>entirely legally precisely, IANAL, but I am certain that with a bit
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
be clean, anything which clamscan doesn't pass can
sit in the queue until clamdscan recovers, since my current method
doesn't let me pull individual errors out for each file without
relaunching clamscan against each message individually.
It's a bit of a hack, but it's
t a clamd failure, I fall back to running
clamscan in a loop that pauses 10 seconds at a time to let a few
messages build up before clamscan runs (in other words, to avoid
relaunching clamscan for every message)
I haven't seen a clamd failure in many moons though, so I'm not sure the
added compl
ge
that fact that it's a privacy statement.
At least they're honest about it.
--
Dave Warren, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Office: (403) 775-1700 / (888) 300-3480
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
record.
I, for one, have made it a point to not care.
>This has
>been a pretty standard thing to do for a long time, and with even more
>characters than the milter currently uses.
Can we get any email address banned in clamav just because at least one
software package has an associated
can trust the signature file?
Anyone in a position to compromise one would almost definitely be able
to compromise the other.
--
Dave Warren, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Office: (403) 775-1700 / (888) 300-3480
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV gu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jan Pieter Cornet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was claimed to have wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 02:52:53PM -0800, Dave Warren wrote:
>> >When I go to the download page for ClamAV at SourceForge,
>> >I observe that the signature file (
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David F. Skoll"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was claimed to have wrote:
>Dave Warren wrote:
>
>> True, but you could make it realistic enough to fool most of the people,
>> most of the time, especially with a readme.txt noting that
This still has value as it can help catch things in action. It doesn't replace
periodic scans either to catch malware discovered since the initial scan.
There are a variety of ways of doing this if scanning everything in one shot
isn't feasible. One option would be to split files up using a hash
As that is a Cloudflare IP, I believe it possibly could represent one or
more backend mirrors as it may return different content depending on the
hostname provided.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, at 06:41, Robin Bourne wrote:
> Joel,
>
> I'm now getting "WARNING: Mirror 104.16.188.138 is not synchronized
On 2018-07-24 22:29, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
I'm not sure what the latest state of windows support is. Judging by
lack of reponses that you find helpful, not many people use it either.
One note here: Not many Windows users install it themselves. I'm betting
the vast majority use it as part of
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, at 11:50, Paul Kosinski wrote:
> "...it works smoothly for a very large number of people, myself
> included."
>
> It would be interesting to know what percentage have experienced our
> original problem of all mirrors ending up blacklisted. I also wonder
> how many ClamAV user
t it will take ClamAV (or anyone
other then Symantec) more then a week to get the definitions updated?
--
Dave Warren,
MSN Instant Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (204) 480-8407 Toll free: (888) 371-3470
Fax: (204) 283-6028
-r ...
Cygwin is a huge performance hog. You might want to try the native port
at http://w32.clamav.net/
--
Dave Warren,
MSN Instant Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (204) 480-8407 Toll free: (888) 371-3470
rds, you are looking for a tax write off.
You've never worked with corporate accountants, have you?
Without a paper trail, the (correct) assumption is that the money is in
whoever approved the expense's pocket.
--
Dave Warren,
MSN Instant Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pho
(or
authorized if it's paid directly), I'd damn well better listen to the
accountant.
There. Now with all of that being said, year end is coming, time to do
some open-source donations to projects that make my professional life
easier. ClamAV will probably be on that list since it's d
ors
>would die. That's why the TTL for current.cvd.clamav.net is 900
>secs and not a few secs.
>
>Best regards
Although should that ever become that serious an issue, the solution
would be to simply delay the emails so that they go out over a period of
900 seconds, spreading the load e
monitors too, in
the software world.
In the hardware world, an unnoticed overheat will result in the
equipment going down, which would trigger whatever monitors that box to
report failures.
Is it self-healing? No -- But not everything can heal itself. Whether
the outage is noticed by the use
ations.
If having an email delayed causes significant financial implications,
you've got more serious underlying issues. SMTP is a best-effort
process, there is absolutely no guarantee of delivery at all, let alone
timely delivery.
--
Dave Warren,
MSN Instant Messenger:
On 2020-12-11 08:51, Paul Kosinski via clamav-users wrote:
"The whole CVD filename is not versioned (always "daily.cvd") which is
why the CloudFlare caching issue may result in serving the previous
version."
HTML filenames for Web pages are not versioned either. Does this mean
that CDNs like Clo
wrote:
> Both of those things are done as well.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 13, 2020, at 19:24, Dave Warren via clamav-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-12-11 08:51, Paul Kosinski via clamav-users wrote:
> >> "The whole CVD filen
On 2021-03-22 13:56, Grant Taylor via clamav-users wrote:
On 3/22/21 1:53 PM, Grant Taylor via clamav-users wrote:
I'm both curious and want to make sure that what my Linode is (and has
been) doing is not a problem.
I want to make sure:
1) That what my Linode is doing is not a problem. --
A firewall's job is to regulate unwanted/undesired traffic and to
enforce policy as defined by the business, not to invent it.
If the business policy is to allow virus definition updates then the
firewall should be configured to do so. If not, it should be blocked
completely. Anything else is
On 2022-04-25 11:14, Paul Smith via clamav-users wrote:
The problem 'magically' disappeared as soon as the 26522 update was
published, so, to me, it really looks as if there were bad files on one
of the mirrors. The later update would have replaced that with a correct
file, so it all works agai
On 2019-03-15 09:53, Franky Van Liedekerke via clamav-users wrote:
I wonder why the http/https discussion is still relevant. Almost all sites use
https now, http is getting slowly banned and a lot of companies just don't want
to allow incoming http traffic towards a server. Certifcates cost not
The same applies: Report it. Cloudflare will either forward the
complaint for you, or block the offending URL (or both).
On 2019-04-25 19:16, Dennis Peterson wrote:
That domain is hosted on a cloudflare IP block. They're become part of
the problem.
dp
On 4/25/19 7:52 AM, J.R. via clamav-user
29 matches
Mail list logo
