Hi!
We are using Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake) on x86 boxes, and 6.06 uses gcc
4.0.3...and as such, we cannot compile the new clamav-0.92:
checking for a supported version of gcc... ok (4.0.3)
checking for gcc bug PR27603... ok, bug not present
checking for gcc bug PR28045... configu
On Dec 17, 2007 10:03 AM, Török Edwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can't upgrade to a newer gcc, you can also use an older gcc that
> doesn't have this bug:
> Ubuntu 6.06 LTS provides gcc-3.4:
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/dapper/devel/gcc-3.4
>
> # apt-get install gcc-3.4
>
> The source cod
I've been using ClamAV for some time and am so happy you are providing
this solution, especially with the latest Bagel variant that is going
around.
I am using the development version from CVS on 7/31/04, and have been
sticking with it because it seems to have solved all of the memory
leak problem
Hello,
The latest 0.81 release of clamav now displays "ERROR: ScanStream:
accept() failed." errors in the logs for some incoming e-mails. For
example if I send the "Test #6: Eicar virus embedded within another
MIME segment" test from http://www.webmail.us/testvirus it causes this
error, where with
Thu Jan 27 11:58:27 2005 -> SelfCheck: Database status OK.
-ed
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:50:02 +, Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 11:44 -0800, exo dia wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The latest 0.81 release of clamav now displays "ERROR: Sca
TED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 11:44 -0800, exo dia wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The latest 0.81 release of clamav now displays "ERROR: ScanStream:
> > accept() failed." errors in the logs for some incoming e-mails. For
> > example if I send the "
]> wrote:
> exo dia wrote:
>
> > I am piping e-mail via procmail, I pipe the e-mail to clamdscan
> > through a shell script (no milter or anything being used.) This is
> > the original version of the script I am using:
> > http://www.everysoft.com/clamfilter.pl.txt
>
> Just finished my coffee. It is not perl, but the OS itself.
>
> Just doing: "nc -vvv -l -p 61000" gives "address already in use",
> and that up to port 65234. But there is no process really using it.
> I think that range was used by the NAT-module in ipchains.
>
> That machine was planned to
