Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Anthony Kamau wrote: Yeah - I'm smiling too - 72MB for an entire month for ~100 machines on a network - that's just bloody cool bananas! SNIP I don't see any other AV package coming anywhere close! (sarcasm on) Hey! The big yellow-label AV does that kind of numbers. It's easy. Just run your update download once a week. (sarcasm off) I can't imagine that I ever relied on an AV that downloaded updates once a week. Br... Well, we all learn and grow :-P - Charles ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:clamav-users- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2008 11:56 PM To: ClamAV users ML Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1 I recently *stopped* advising our members to use AVG Free edition because the latest download had bloated to nearly 40MB. That's roughly SEVEN hours on a dial-up connection. I've started to recommend ClamWin, but that package is also slowly increasing in size. It's up to 21MB. Still, ClamAV has the most efficient updates I've seen (smile) - Charles Yeah - I'm smiling too - 72MB for an entire month for ~100 machines on a network - that's just bloody cool bananas! Calculations: Machines with ClamAV - 100 Updates - 1 per hour daily-.cdiff size - ~1024 bytes Machine on-time - 24 hrs Bandwidth per day = ~2.4MB Bandwidth per month (31 days) - ~72MB Bloody terrific!!! I don't see any other AV package coming anywhere close! ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:39:02 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Henrik K wrote: Who cares if it scans 100ms or 20ms. I prefer features and stability more For those of us who use it as an incoming mail scanner (which I seem to recall being the primary focus of clam from statements on this list) it matters a great deal. The rate of scanning has to keep up with the rate of incoming mail, or you have an ever-growing backlog. Also, the time difference isn't just 100ms vs 20ms -- there are some OLE documents that in the past have taken minutes to scan. I think most of these problems are solved now, but I wouldn't want to add back any solution that increases the time. Further, signatures are one thing, but in a server environment you do not want code to be updated automatically. Code updates usually have to be rolled out, tested first on a test server, then put into production. Chris: Exactly why we use it here along with Exim and spamassassin. Its one of a few products that I'm aware of that will integrate with the setup and work (as of now anyway) well wit them and quickly. We are barely keeping pace with mail now with 4 dual-core 3GHZ boxes I really don't want to slow this down or have to add more hardware due to a code change to make the tarball smaller or whatever the reason is. The goal should be to maximize the speed of the scanning (at least that has been the way they have been going in the past along with stability) I thought. As for updates, I agree 100% we're in exactly the same position here, taking automatic updates to signatures is one thing, taking them to code is quite another. If that occurs or becomes the way clamav works, I'm sorry to say but the corp. environment I work in will force me to look at another solution. EVERYTHING here code wise goes through test/qa/prod system our info security folks would fall over if they heard this idea, then they'd demand the product get pulled today. -- ===[George R. Kasica]===+1 262 677 0766 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ #12862186 ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Hello, On 2008-08-20 17:31, Henrik K wrote: I guess they are some sort of pseudo-binary-code or whatever. I'd like to see ClamAV use this kind of technology. pseudo-binary code would slow down clamav. Clamav is already slower than e.g. drweb, at least on out systems. Do you want to have slow antivirus? I don't. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 05:40:55PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote: Distributing binary executable code via database updates? I don't think that is a wise idea. Perhaps distributing bytecode would allow you to use older engines for longer time. On 21.08.08 08:37, Henrik K wrote: I don't care what the method would be. Be innovative. Create a safe method. :) Distributing whole sources to fix smaller (but serious) issues seems a waste. distributing whole sources is not problem, if they could be distributed w/o virus db. Removing database from rc4 changed the .tgz from 20 to 2.7 MiB. Compressed diff (patch) from 0.93.3 to 0.94rc4 is 277k. Yes, they are not binary. For example, some zip exploit. Just disabling the zip engine and hoping that users upgrade soon is ok, but not very high-tech. It would be wonderful to just get the core zip engine updated together with signatures. I don't think it's safe. If we have the fix, it should be patshed asap. Disabling the zip engine is only a hotfix which may cause viruses to be passed through (yes, workstations should be using different AV than servers). -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. LSD will make your ECS screen display 16.7 million colors ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 08:52:30AM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: Hello, On 2008-08-20 17:31, Henrik K wrote: I guess they are some sort of pseudo-binary-code or whatever. I'd like to see ClamAV use this kind of technology. pseudo-binary code would slow down clamav. Clamav is already slower than e.g. drweb, at least on out systems. Do you want to have slow antivirus? I don't. Who cares if it scans 100ms or 20ms. I prefer features and stability more (which ClamAV might or might not have yet). Are you a talented coder or what makes you think that such thing as pseudo-binary (I invented the word, I don't know if it even means anything) would slow down things if properly designed? I don't care what the method would be. Be innovative. Create a safe method. :) Distributing whole sources to fix smaller (but serious) issues seems a waste. distributing whole sources is not problem, if they could be distributed w/o virus db. Removing database from rc4 changed the .tgz from 20 to 2.7 MiB. Compressed diff (patch) from 0.93.3 to 0.94rc4 is 277k. You don't seem to understand my point at all. Why bother downloading stuff and compiling for such case? Read below. For example, some zip exploit. Just disabling the zip engine and hoping that users upgrade soon is ok, but not very high-tech. It would be wonderful to just get the core zip engine updated together with signatures. I don't think it's safe. If we have the fix, it should be patshed asap. Disabling the zip engine is only a hotfix which may cause viruses to be passed through (yes, workstations should be using different AV than servers). Ofcourse DCONF is only a hotfix. But nothing guarantees that users will update to the new patched version soon!!! A much more sophisticated way would be to distribute the fixed component, instead of making some users on holiday lose zip functionality for a long time. I know, it's just a fantasy. ClamAV does go forward, but not at the speed that dozen well-paid developers could do. :) ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:24:29AM CEST, Henrik K [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Who cares if it scans 100ms or 20ms. I prefer features and stability more (which ClamAV might or might not have yet). Are you a talented coder or what makes you think that such thing as pseudo-binary (I invented the word, I don't know if it even means anything) would slow down things if properly designed? Depends on the usage. We stopped using Kaspersky on development stations, because it made projects compilations five to eight time slowers... 20ms to 100 ms for each file will make your compilation awfully slow. -- Erwan ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:37:19 +0300 Henrik K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't care what the method would be. Be innovative. Create a safe method. :) No need to reinvent the wheel, such a technology has been already invented - it's name is apt-get Co. Rewriting the zip code and other modules from C into a bytecode would be an overkill and would seriously hit the performance of ClamAV. Having said that, we have plans for developing a bytecode interpreter for one of the upcoming major releases but it will be targeted on malware detection and will allow us to distribute detection algorithms together with regular signatures. But for sure we won't rewrite core modules with it, moreover - to save the performance we will try to limit the calls to the bytecode interpreter as much as possible. -- oo. Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL PROTECTED] (\/)\. http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Thu Aug 21 12:39:07 CEST 2008 ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Henrik K wrote: Who cares if it scans 100ms or 20ms. I prefer features and stability more For those of us who use it as an incoming mail scanner (which I seem to recall being the primary focus of clam from statements on this list) it matters a great deal. The rate of scanning has to keep up with the rate of incoming mail, or you have an ever-growing backlog. Also, the time difference isn't just 100ms vs 20ms -- there are some OLE documents that in the past have taken minutes to scan. I think most of these problems are solved now, but I wouldn't want to add back any solution that increases the time. Further, signatures are one thing, but in a server environment you do not want code to be updated automatically. Code updates usually have to be rolled out, tested first on a test server, then put into production. == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Hi there, On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 Dennis Peterson wrote: G.W. Haywood wrote: My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be Which begs the question: How big should it be [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail]$ tar czv clamav-0.93.3/database/ database.tgz [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail]$ tar czv clamav-0.93.3 --exclude=clamav-0.93.3/database/* no_database.tgz [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail]$ l *database* -rw-rw-r--1 ged ged 16085104 Aug 19 12:58 database.tgz -rw-rw-r--1 ged ged 2341518 Aug 19 12:59 no_database.tgz and why is that size better than the one it is? Why the dumb questions? I know you know the answers as well as I. -- 73, Ged. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Spiro Harvey, Knossos Networks Ltd wrote: Bandwidth costs money. How big will the database have to grow before the ClamAV team starts to take notice? Fifty megabytes? A hundred? Americans don't understand this dilemma. To them traffic is free... Minor correction: RICH Americans (and Canadians) don't appreciate this dilemma. All the POOR people still using dial-up internet are the victims of ever-increasing software/download size. I am routinely helping our (community NFP internet) members clear out their mailboxes when some ignorant friend on high speed keeps sending 5-10MB worth of photos. :( I recently *stopped* advising our members to use AVG Free edition because the latest download had bloated to nearly 40MB. That's roughly SEVEN hours on a dial-up connection. I've started to recommend ClamWin, but that package is also slowly increasing in size. It's up to 21MB. Still, ClamAV has the most efficient updates I've seen (smile) - Charles ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Charles Gregory wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Spiro Harvey, Knossos Networks Ltd wrote: Bandwidth costs money. How big will the database have to grow before the ClamAV team starts to take notice? Fifty megabytes? A hundred? Americans don't understand this dilemma. To them traffic is free... Minor correction: RICH Americans (and Canadians) don't appreciate this dilemma. All the POOR people still using dial-up internet are the victims of ever-increasing software/download size. I am routinely helping our (community NFP internet) members clear out their mailboxes when some ignorant friend on high speed keeps sending 5-10MB worth of photos. :( I recently *stopped* advising our members to use AVG Free edition because the latest download had bloated to nearly 40MB. That's roughly SEVEN hours on a dial-up connection. I've started to recommend ClamWin, but that package is also slowly increasing in size. It's up to 21MB. Still, ClamAV has the most efficient updates I've seen (smile) It will be a bad day for all when poor people set the standards of quality and functionality for the rest of the world. It will happen only at the point of a gun. Get over it. Meanwhile, I believe you can pick and choose what you need from the cvs server, no? dp ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:00:46PM +1000, Bill Maidment wrote: Perhaps we could have two versions; one with a recent database, and one with an empty database. Then let the user decide which he requires. I agree, Sourceforge mirrors are pretty slow these days. ;) This reminds me, I'd rather not see ClamAV software updates at all unless absolutely necessary. I have a very good example, the last free Bitdefender for Linux: # ./bdc BDC/Linux-Console v7.1 (build 2559) (i386) (Jul 6 2005 16:28:53) The (very small) binary works great even today! The whole engine and components are updated together with signatures! 192205 2008-08-19 22:35 cevakrnl.xmd 45811 2008-06-18 21:35 unpack.xmd 20564 2008-08-04 20:35 zip.xmd ... I guess they are some sort of pseudo-binary-code or whatever. I'd like to see ClamAV use this kind of technology. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
It will be a bad day for all when poor people set the standards of quality and functionality for the rest of the world. It will happen only at the point of a gun. Get over it. Meanwhile, I believe you can pick and choose what you need from the cvs server, no? dp That is really arrogant, typically American style.It was always a good practice, to keep non-volatileinformation (code) seperately from volatile info (db)User-friendliness is not a strong point in OpenSoftware, not only with clamAV, I have to admit.And that is, why MS still is so well-off. __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
reiner otto wrote: It will be a bad day for all when poor people set the standards of quality and functionality for the rest of the world. It will happen only at the point of a gun. Get over it. Meanwhile, I believe you can pick and choose what you need from the cvs server, no? dp That is really arrogant, typically American style. I'm Danish. dp ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
--- Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Mi, 20.8.2008: Von: Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1 An: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net Datum: Mittwoch, 20. August 2008, 18:05 reiner otto wrote: It will be a bad day for all when poor people set the standards of quality and functionality for the rest of the world. It will happen only at the point of a gun. Get over it. Meanwhile, I believe you can pick and choose what you need from the cvs server, no? dp That is really arrogant, typically American style. I'm Danish. dp Even much worse. Although sincere.Interesting although, that you were not upset because of the rest of my comment. My sincere apologies to the Americans. __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Guys, It's about time to let this thread die. The full database is distributed with full releases to let our mirrors save some bandwidth. At least some people grabbing the release tarball won't hit them with full main.cvd requests. If you can't be arsed or can't afford downloading the tarball with the database, use svn. It's exactly the same stuff. Your choice. -aCaB ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On 2008-08-20 17:31, Henrik K wrote: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:00:46PM +1000, Bill Maidment wrote: Perhaps we could have two versions; one with a recent database, and one with an empty database. Then let the user decide which he requires. I agree, Sourceforge mirrors are pretty slow these days. ;) This reminds me, I'd rather not see ClamAV software updates at all unless absolutely necessary. I have a very good example, the last free Bitdefender for Linux: # ./bdc BDC/Linux-Console v7.1 (build 2559) (i386) (Jul 6 2005 16:28:53) The (very small) binary works great even today! The whole engine and components are updated together with signatures! 192205 2008-08-19 22:35 cevakrnl.xmd 45811 2008-06-18 21:35 unpack.xmd 20564 2008-08-04 20:35 zip.xmd ... I guess they are some sort of pseudo-binary-code or whatever. I'd like to see ClamAV use this kind of technology. Distributing binary executable code via database updates? I don't think that is a wise idea. Perhaps distributing bytecode would allow you to use older engines for longer time. Best regards, --Edwin ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 05:40:55PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote: On 2008-08-20 17:31, Henrik K wrote: On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:00:46PM +1000, Bill Maidment wrote: Perhaps we could have two versions; one with a recent database, and one with an empty database. Then let the user decide which he requires. I agree, Sourceforge mirrors are pretty slow these days. ;) This reminds me, I'd rather not see ClamAV software updates at all unless absolutely necessary. I have a very good example, the last free Bitdefender for Linux: # ./bdc BDC/Linux-Console v7.1 (build 2559) (i386) (Jul 6 2005 16:28:53) The (very small) binary works great even today! The whole engine and components are updated together with signatures! 192205 2008-08-19 22:35 cevakrnl.xmd 45811 2008-06-18 21:35 unpack.xmd 20564 2008-08-04 20:35 zip.xmd ... I guess they are some sort of pseudo-binary-code or whatever. I'd like to see ClamAV use this kind of technology. Distributing binary executable code via database updates? I don't think that is a wise idea. Perhaps distributing bytecode would allow you to use older engines for longer time. I don't care what the method would be. Be innovative. Create a safe method. :) Distributing whole sources to fix smaller (but serious) issues seems a waste. For example, some zip exploit. Just disabling the zip engine and hoping that users upgrade soon is ok, but not very high-tech. It would be wonderful to just get the core zip engine updated together with signatures. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Hi there, On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 Brian Morrison wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:59:29 +0100 G.W. Haywood wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Luca Gibelli wrote: ... release candidate for 0.94. I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. Well it's not *that* big! My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be and apparently it's growing without bound. This is because it contains a database, which is of course probably a useless copy of the one already on the machine which will be running the new version of clamav. If it isn't, that's most probably because it's out of date, and it will be deleted. It's insane. Bandwidth costs money. How big will the database have to grow before the ClamAV team starts to take notice? Fifty megabytes? A hundred? We can be sure that the ingenuity of the malware authors is not going to be the limiting factor. -- 73, Ged. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:51:37 +0100 (BST), G.W. Haywood wrote Hi there, On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 Brian Morrison wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:59:29 +0100 G.W. Haywood wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Luca Gibelli wrote: ... release candidate for 0.94. I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. Well it's not *that* big! My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be and apparently it's growing without bound. This is because it contains a database, which is of course probably a useless copy of the one already on the machine which will be running the new version of clamav. If it isn't, that's most probably because it's out of date, and it will be deleted. It's insane. I agree with the sentiment, but it's not quite insane. I think it is quite reasonable to provide a complete package that will give reasonable protection straight out of the box. Perhaps we could have two versions; one with a recent database, and one with an empty database. Then let the user decide which he requires. Cheers and thank for all the hard work. Bill -- Bill Maidment Maidment Enterprises Pty Ltd www.maidment.vu Consultant to Elgas Ltd Phone: 02 9904 3364 ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Bill Maidment wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:51:37 +0100 (BST), G.W. Haywood wrote My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be and apparently it's growing without bound. This is because it contains a database, which is of course probably a useless copy of the one already on the machine which will be running the new version of clamav. If it isn't, that's most probably because it's out of date, and it will be deleted. It's insane. I agree with the sentiment, but it's not quite insane. I think it is quite reasonable to provide a complete package that will give reasonable protection straight out of the box. Perhaps we could have two versions; one with a recent database, and one with an empty database. Then let the user decide which he requires. I'll second that idea. It would reduce the download time of users doing upgrades and at the same time save bandwidth on the servers. -- Bowie ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:51:37PM +0100, G.W. Haywood wrote: I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. Well it's not *that* big! My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be and apparently it's growing without bound. This is because it contains a database, It's probably this big because it now includes support for Premier Election Solutions' (formerly Diebold) machines. See also http://www.xkcd.org/463/ :) (is the bandwidth really such a big deal now that people usually toss DVD images around?) Also note - every other virus scanner I'm aware of also comes with a database out of the box (that sophos update I just downloaded was also 24Meg). Of course, outdated as soon as you hit Download, but with the incremental updates of clam, not quite worthless. -- Jan-Pieter Cornet [EMAIL PROTECTED] !! Disclamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !! !! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !! !! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification of the logs. !! ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
--- Jan Pieter Cornet [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Di, 19.8.2008: Von: Jan Pieter Cornet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1 An: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net Datum: Dienstag, 19. August 2008, 17:24 On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:51:37PM +0100, G.W. Haywood wrote: I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. Well it's not *that* big! My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be and apparently it's growing without bound. This is because it contains a database, It's probably this big because it now includes support for Premier Election Solutions' (formerly Diebold) machines. See also http://www.xkcd.org/463/ :) (is the bandwidth really such a big deal now that people usually toss DVD images around?) Also note - every other virus scanner I'm aware of also comes with a database out of the box (that sophos update I just downloaded was also 24Meg). Of course, outdated as soon as you hit Download, but with the incremental updates of clam, not quite worthless. Bandwidth still is an issue, although in the East, at least.Actually I am located in Ukraine, and 1GB traffic on my DSL-connectioncosts me about 20$. So I better buy DVD's ...And quite a few people still have 128kBit or 256kBit lines.Then traffic volume is also an issue. __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
gcc 4.0.1 caused configuration failure with PR bug 28045 Bypassed with CFLAGS='O0' and installed successfully on Macintosh PowerPC G4 (10.4.11). make check returned no errors. freshclam log showed the following entries: Database updated (397476 signatures) from database.clamav.net (IP: 193.1.193.64) Clamd successfully notified about the update. Cheers ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On 2008-08-19 21:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gcc 4.0.1 caused configuration failure with PR bug 28045 Bypassed with CFLAGS='O0' and installed successfully on Macintosh PowerPC G4 (10.4.11). Another workaround is to use llvm-gcc as described in the FAQ, and you don't have to disable optimizations with it: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.3 make check returned no errors. Thanks for testing, was make check's output something similar to this? == All 5 tests passed (1 tests were not run) == Best regards, --Edwin ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
G.W. Haywood wrote: Hi there, On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 Brian Morrison wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:59:29 +0100 G.W. Haywood wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Luca Gibelli wrote: ... release candidate for 0.94. I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. Well it's not *that* big! My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be Which begs the question: How big should it be, and why is that size better than the one it is? It's not like we're all downloading this thing several times a day. dp ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
* Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: My point was that it's ten times as big as it should be Which begs the question: How big should it be, and why is that size better than the one it is? Size matters not! -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Bandwidth costs money. How big will the database have to grow before the ClamAV team starts to take notice? Fifty megabytes? A hundred? Americans don't understand this dilemma. To them traffic is free because it's all national. International traffic costs money but that only affects countries outside the US because we have to ship most of our traffic over international links to get to them. Of course, this is usually resolved by talking to national mirrors. And it's even better when those mirrors are up to date. :) -- Spiro Harvey Knossos Networks Ltd 021-295-1923www.knossos.net.nz ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Built with no problems on FC6 Jim ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
Hi there, On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Luca Gibelli wrote: ... release candidate for 0.94. I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. -- 73, Ged. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
* G.W. Haywood [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi there, On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Luca Gibelli wrote: ... release candidate for 0.94. I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. That's expected. 0.90: 11.575.374 0.91: 13.026.634 0.92: 16.134.725 0.93: 20.247.322 -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:59:29 +0100 (BST) G.W. Haywood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there, On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Luca Gibelli wrote: ... release candidate for 0.94. I started to download it, but when I saw that it was going to be just under 20 megabytes I cancelled it. Well it's not *that* big! FWIW it built quite happily on my RH9 (I know!) box with no changes needed to my spec file. As yet I have not actually installed and run the resulting rpms. -- Brian Morrison bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud; after a while you realize you are muddy and the pig is enjoying it. GnuPG key ID DE32E5C5 - http://wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/wwwkeys.html ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] announcing ClamAV 0.94rc1
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Brian Morrison wrote: FWIW it built quite happily on my RH9 (I know!) box with no changes needed to my spec file. As yet I have not actually installed and run the resulting rpms. Built and run here on Solaris 8. I have clamav-milter running on a test machine. == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
