[EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote:
> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote:
>>> (Doug: as far as the "-m" option WRT ClamAV goes - let me have a
look at
>>> that - it's a separate, specific issue)
>> I would suggest against adding the -m flag (at least it shouldn't be
>> added by default). A
Adam Goryachev wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote:
On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 09:54, Doug Monroe wrote:
Greg is/was using F-Secure, but wrt to clamscan use, it might be
advisable to add the -m flag to clamuko_options (Jason?)
(Doug: as far as the "-m" option WRT ClamAV goes - let me
have a look at
th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 09:54, Doug Monroe wrote:
>> Greg is/was using F-Secure, but wrt to clamscan use, it might be
>> advisable to add the -m flag to clamuko_options (Jason?)
> (Doug: as far as the "-m" option WRT ClamAV goes - let me
> have a look at
> that - it's a
Jason Haar wrote:
There is no problem. As far as I can tell, when such a bounce message
gets to an end-user, all they see is a raw text message - no attachments
- no virus. As such the fact that other AV systems say there is a virus
is debatable. I'd say as the user cannot possibly be infected wit
On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 09:54, Doug Monroe wrote:
> Greg is/was using F-Secure, but wrt to clamscan use, it might be
> advisable to add the -m flag to clamuko_options (Jason?)
>
Nope - I have a better answer :-)
1.21 will check the body of the message for the presence of "MIMEiness"
- if it finds
Greg Kelley wrote:
Folks,
We discussed this issue last week and Doug Monroe and I did some experiments
with these messages that were getting through and:
Although Norton AV 2002 discovered an attachment and quarantined it, without
Norton AV active the message appears to Outlook Express NOT to have
