Re: [Clamav-devel] clamav-milter logging
On Thursday 30 March 2006 15:34, Nigel Horne wrote:
smfi_setdbg(6);
It was necessary to tell me, that
[49156] cur 0 new 1 nextmask 2
[49156] got cmd 'D' len 148
[49156] cur 1 new nextmask 2004
[49156] got cmd 'C' len 42
[49156] cur 1 new 2 nextmask 2004
[49156] got cmd 'D' len 1
is a libmilter debug. :-(
I think that there should be no communication between syslog and log
to file.
I replace logVerbose to syslogVerbose at all clamav-milter and
replace near code to
if(cfgopt(copt, LogVerbose)) {
logVerbose = 1;
#if ((SENDMAIL_VERSION_A 8) || ((SENDMAIL_VERSION_A == 8)
(SENDMAIL_VERSION_B = 13)))
smfi_setdbg(6);
#endif
}
if(cfgopt(copt, LogSyslog)) {
int fac = LOG_LOCAL6;
if(cfgopt(copt, SysLogVerbose)) {
syslogVerbose = 1;
}
use_syslog = 1;
It seems to me, it is more correct.
--
Regards,
Sergey
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Re: [Clamav-devel] why don't write portable code
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 05:19:35 +0800 梁飞 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: clamav-devel，您好！ why don't you write portable code? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX if some function must use dependent platform API, we could implement it using macro at runtime. e.g, visit a directory are difference in Linux and Win32. We could implement a VisitDirectory fuction in LibClamav, and use it. The implement of VisitDirectory fuction depend on macro at runtime. i think engine is pure, and portable. if that, we could easier to portable it in diffent OS. ClamAV was not designed for win32 and to use it effectively on this platform one would need to redesign the whole engine, implement new features and provide specialised signature updates. -- oo. Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL PROTECTED] (\/)\. http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Fri Mar 31 23:52:56 CEST 2006 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Re: Re: [Clamav-devel] why don't write portable code
Tomasz Kojm,您好！ but in fact, engine is pure. Most of commercial AV has Linux and Win32 version. so... the engine could be design the independ OS, why don't you code that? i know it maybe use some time to write it, but i think it valuealbe. ONE ENGINE IS A CORE OF SOFTWARE. and why don't you design it indepent platform? if possible, the directory maybe plot clearly, the same functions maybe in ONE DIRECTORY. it's a little suggestion. === 2006-04-01 05:54:50 您在来信中写道：=== On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 05:19:35 +0800 梁飞 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: clamav-devel，您好！ why don't you write portable code? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX if some function must use dependent platform API, we could implement it using macro at runtime. e.g, visit a directory are difference in Linux and Win32. We could implement a VisitDirectory fuction in LibClamav, and use it. The implement of VisitDirectory fuction depend on macro at runtime. i think engine is pure, and portable. if that, we could easier to portable it in diffent OS. ClamAV was not designed for win32 and to use it effectively on this platform one would need to redesign the whole engine, implement new features and provide specialised signature updates. -- oo. Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL PROTECTED] (\/)\. http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Fri Mar 31 23:52:56 CEST 2006 ___ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 致 礼！ 梁飞 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-01 ___ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
Re: [Clamav-devel] why don't write portable code
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 06:21:53 +0800 梁飞 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tomasz Kojm,您好！ but in fact, engine is pure. Most of commercial AV has Linux and Win32 version. so... the engine could be design the independ OS, why don't you code that? http://www.clamav.net/abstract.html#pagestart Clam AntiVirus is a GPL anti-virus toolkit for UNIX.[...] i know it maybe use some time to write it, but i think it valuealbe. ONE ENGINE IS A CORE OF SOFTWARE. and why don't you design it indepent platform? if possible, the directory maybe plot clearly, the same The engine is POSIX compliant. -- oo. Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL PROTECTED] (\/)\. http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Sat Apr 1 00:54:35 CEST 2006 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
RE: [Clamav-devel] why don't write portable code
i know it maybe use some time to write it, but i think it valuealbe. ONE ENGINE IS A CORE OF SOFTWARE. and why don't you design it indepent platform? if possible, the directory maybe plot clearly, the same The engine is POSIX compliant. And, in fact, Microsoft has made a POSIX-compliant executive sub-system derived from OpenBSD and System V available for Windows NT 5+. It is called Interix aka Services for UNIX and Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (SUA). Clamd and clamscan run fine under Interix. Download SFU 3.5 here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/unix/sfu/default.mspx Subsystem for Unix-based Applications (SUA/Interix 5.2): http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/r2/unixinterop/default.mspx POSIX should be portable enough. ___ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
