Hi,
i am very happy with 1.3.1, so i use it on my stable server. 1.3.3.1 does not
work so good for me so i will look forward to 1.3.3.3, but i prefer a version
that is stable for a few month. 1.3.3.2 is installed on a testing enviroment,
but i do not have real data at this time.
Using message
Hi Paul,
Ist NOT a dumb Question, look here:
http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.htm
http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter-fake.htm
And what I withdraw:
http://removals.tqmcube.com/index.php?x=mod_id=2id=13
Mit freundlichen Gru?en
Christian Rehkopf
-Ursprungliche
Greg Wright wrote:
Hi all.
Is ASSP with ClamAV integrated good enough to protect a domain (with no
local administrator) from virus threats?
On a windows network I would suggest always using a desktop filter
also. I use Sophos (and am a Sophos reseller if you need a licence ;) )
and
I would say no. I run ASSP with clamav (and for the past month also
sanesecurity and msrbl signatures). Behind ASSP I have GFI MailSecurity; since
new year GFI has found 5189 unique infested mails.
My experience is that ClamAV signatures are updated slower than the signatures
used by the 4
No.
You (everyone) should have a multi-layered, mult-vendor, anti-virus solution.
My Symantec for MS Exchange frequently catches .zip's that ClamAV did not.
Remembe, ClamAV is being used with ASSP as type of sniffing proxy. The entire
file is not being analyzed, and files that can operate as
Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
assp-user@lists.sourceforge.net schreibt:
will newer versions also skip tests after low threshold?
No. Will not.
Please run 1.3.3.2. I do it myself. It is stable and the best I have
produced up to now. AND I need reponse.
On 22 Aug 2007 at 8:10, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
You (everyone) should have a multi-layered, mult-vendor, anti-virus solution.
Yes
My Symantec for MS Exchange frequently catches .zip's that ClamAV did not.
Remembe, ClamAV is being used with ASSP as type of sniffing proxy. The
entire
I have to agree. In my own side-by-side test, NOD32 has caught everything l've
thrown at it and even didn't know I had. Its by far the best AV I have ever
used. I couldn't recommend it strongly enough.
But if you are interested, don't take my/our word for it: look at the industry
stats and
Remembe, ClamAV is being used with ASSP as type of sniffing proxy.
The entire file is not being analyzed, and files that can operate as
containers for other files are not fully interrogated.
It is up to the admin to set the avbytes option. What
files that can operate as containers for other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreibt:
And also, if ASSP finds a match in an earlier
test, it won't put the mail through Clamav.
I am not aware of this.
Spamlover mails will be virus checked.
Testmode is testmode, or do you want that ASSP stops mails in Testmode?
Testmode is an legacy method, there are
What I mean is that files that can contain other files (e.g. zip) are not
looked at as a whole, and inspected internally to the /full/ extent that they
could or would be by a SMTP MTA or SMTP relay-based AV solution.
e.g. The last time I checked, ClamAV signatures were released ahead of
Please run 1.3.3.2. I do it myself. It is stable and the best I have
produced up to now. AND I need reponse.
I'm newly on assp-test list - where do I find this version?
- Bob
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk
1.3.3.2 is not longer there. I assume you mean 1.3.3.3??
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fritz
Borgstedt
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:24 AM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re: [Assp-user]
I'm newly on assp-test list - where do I find this version?
http://www.magicvillage.de/~Fritz_Borgstedt/assp/S05F324B2?WasRead=1
you are here on assp-user , not on assp-test.
If you want to run development versions join:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to subscribe mailto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Can the noPB contain values such as 66..35.250. so any blacklisted IP
addresses (including 66.35.250.0) will be removed from the blacklist?
Dave
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through
Can the noPB contain values such as 66..35.250. so any blacklisted IP
addresses (including 66.35.250.0) will be removed from the blacklist?
did you try it?
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping
What version should i use, the 1.3.3.2-final from sourceforge or the version
from magicvillage. Could you explain where are the differences and which one
needs more testing? Or is magicvillage only for the devs?
Wissenswertes zum Thema PC, Zubehör oder Programme. BE A BETTER
Am I reading this correctly?
Aug-22-07 12:56:31 id-1791c24781 83.28.240.89 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LDAP Results (proxyAddresses=smtp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]): 0 :
Aug-22-07 12:56:31 [RelayAttempt] id-1791c24781 83.28.240.89
[EMAIL PROTECTED] relay attempt blocked for:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can there be an option to have it ignore whitelist and/or NP's?
I can't think of a reason I would want any mail that isn't going to a
legitimate address to be passed to my backend mail server.
-
This SF.net email is
On 22 Aug 2007 at 14:58, Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreibt:
And also, if ASSP finds a match in an earlier
test, it won't put the mail through Clamav.
I am not aware of this.
Spamlover mails will be virus checked.
Testmode is testmode, or do you want that ASSP stops
Ulrik Løye wrote:
I would say no. I run ASSP with clamav (and for the past month also
sanesecurity and msrbl signatures). Behind ASSP I have GFI
MailSecurity; since new year GFI has found 5189 unique infested
mails.
Are you not using delaying?
I haven't seen one virus hit my Exchange server
Kevin wrote:
Are you not using delaying?
I haven't seen one virus hit my Exchange server since i enabled that in
ASSP.
I can't attest to the same statistic. It certainly helps though.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
Can the noPB contain values such as 66..35.250. so any blacklisted IP
addresses (including 66.35.250.0) will be removed from the blacklist?
did you try it?
Yes, but I couldn't tell which address actually worked to remove both lines
because of the delay before the file
Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Are you not using delaying?
I haven't seen one virus hit my Exchange server since i enabled that in
ASSP.
I can't attest to the same statistic. It certainly helps though.
I concede that some types of mail detected by virus scanners these days
do
Can there be an option to have it ignore whitelist and/or NPs?
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files
25 matches
Mail list logo
