Spiro Harvey wrote:
Shame you haven't talked to to others - like havp for example - before
doing this.
The announcement to EOL the old releases was made at the start of
october last year. If people using clam as an integral part of their
software don't read announcements, what fault is that of
Jim Preston wrote:
Steve Wray wrote:
Spiro Harvey wrote:
Shame you haven't talked to to others - like havp for example - before
doing this.
The announcement to EOL the old releases was made at the start of
october last year. If people using clam as an integral part of their
software
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Christoph Cordes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> so in the end it boils down to this:
>
> - after a new release ClamAV should mimic the behavior of the
> preceding version by default unless it's a major release (.x0) or the
> user enabled possible new features explicitly. furthermore the
> default beha
Christoph Cordes wrote:
> Am 20.11.2007 um 11:06 schrieb Sean Doherty:
>
>> Anyone know if there is any substance to this vulnerability claim?
>>
>> http://wabisabilabi.blogspot.com/2007/11/focus-on-clamav-remote-
>> code-execution.html
>
> No.
Ok, slight ambiguity here.
On the face of it you
Hi there,
I'm not sure this is the right mailing list for this but here goes anyway.
I need to find out if I am dealing with a false positive or with a real
problem.
I've been running clamav over some of our webservers content for the
past year or so and it has never found anything (apart from
Noel Jones wrote:
> Steve Wray wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> I'm not sure this is the right mailing list for this but here goes anyway.
>>
>> I need to find out if I am dealing with a false positive or with a real
>> problem.
>>
>> I've been run
Noel Jones wrote:
> Steve Wray wrote:
>> Noel Jones wrote:
>>> Steve Wray wrote:
>>>> Hi there,
>>>> I'm not sure this is the right mailing list for this but here goes anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I need to find out if I am dealing
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 11.08.2008 12:05 schrieb Ian Eiloart:
>> In fact, if you accept the email, then silently discard it, then you
>> effectively endorsing the validity of the email. You'll be improving
>> the reputation of the original sender in the eyes of the ISP.
>
> Worse, it can even
15 matches
Mail list logo
