Re: [Clamav-users] now what??????

2003-09-20 Thread Odhiambo Washington
* Thomas Kinghorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20030919 23:32]: wrote: Hi List. Can anyone point me n the right direction with this error in the mainlog file of exim. 2003-09-19 15:07:51 1A0KzC-FK-Lt malware acl condition: clamd: connection to 127.0.0.1, port 3310 failed (Bad file descriptor)

Re: [Clamav-users] Email results

2003-09-20 Thread Kevin Spicer
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 23:59, Antony Stone wrote: Try clamscan --help I already did (after your previous post) and it is there, I just think it should be added to the man page as well, that is what man pages are for after all. BMRB International http://www.bmrb.co.uk +44 (0)20 8566 5000

[Clamav-users] Making clamd more stable

2003-09-20 Thread Wouter de Vries
Hi, I've read a few reports the last week about people on *BSD who are having stability problems with clamd (crashes for no reason), and I am one of them with OpenBSD. A few people started to create solutions to restart clamd as soon as possible when clamd crashes, but that is off course not

RE: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread Daniel J McDonald
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:47, Diego d'Ambra wrote: -Original Message- Since the binary is completely missing it's difficult to create a signature that will catch the damaged versions of Gibe.F. You could probably match on the gif file that is included - I've got the same 4.9K gif

Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread Antony Stone
On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:04 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote: On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:47, Diego d'Ambra wrote: -Original Message- Since the binary is completely missing it's difficult to create a signature that will catch the damaged versions of Gibe.F. You could probably

Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread Daniel J McDonald
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 10:40, Antony Stone wrote: On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:04 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote: On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:47, Diego d'Ambra wrote: -Original Message- Since the binary is completely missing it's difficult to create a signature that will

[Clamav-users] OT:looking for a good promail filter for clam

2003-09-20 Thread Flinn Mueller
Does anyone have a working procmail filter for ripping the offending virus out then sending the original message? I tried trashscan and had several problems with it. Particularly it was reassembling a message and pretty much destroying the 'From:' header. My current filter is blocking the

Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread Antony Stone
On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:54 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote: On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 10:40, Antony Stone wrote: A gif is not a virus, so it should not be detected by an anti-virus program. Anyway, what's the point? Why bother blocking a 'damaged' copy of a virus, where 'damaged'

[Clamav-users] Bug in 0.60 Cygwin compile (workaround)

2003-09-20 Thread Jeffry Johnston
Hi, I'm not sure if this is solved in a newer development version, so these instructions are mostly for those like me trying to figure out how to get this compile to work. First, upgrade to the latest compiler, etc, using the Cygwin installer. For reference, I used cygwin 1.5.4-1, gcc 3.2-3,

Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread W.D. McKinney
We host e-mail for schools, business's, etc. It's not feasible to enforce blocking .exe's and keep customers. Simple economics. Support costs are an issue and it's a small trade off in this incident to go blocking the gif route. Dee On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 09:16, Thomas Lamy wrote: Antony Stone

Re: [Clamav-users] Testing ClamAV

2003-09-20 Thread dl
NB: * my server runs Exim 4.22 on FreeBSD 4.6, with exiscan-acl and clamd * OK means that the virus file has been identified by ClamAV * FAILED means that the virus file got though without being detected Some of the tests failed because a detection for them must be implemented in a

Re: [Clamav-users] clamav-milter+sendmail-8.12.9

2003-09-20 Thread Nigel Horne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 19 Sep 2003 6:41 am, Tommi Rintala wrote: There is one entry like this (mail.log): Sep 18 04:17:10 mega clamav-milter[14321]: Expected port information from clamd, got 'Session(1): Time out ERROR ' Sep 18 04:17:10 mega sm-mta[14312]:

[Clamav-users] Installation

2003-09-20 Thread Christian Ista
Hello, I have a server (Redhat 7.1). I installed that : - clamav - Qmail-queue - Qmail-scanner - some perl module All these elements are compiled and installed, I didn't have any problem. When I send e mail, I see it in : /var/log/qmail/current (see below) But the mail not arrive, could you

Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread Antony Stone
On Saturday 20 September 2003 6:39 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote: I would prefer that clamav be able to determine if it appears to be a virus, even one damaged to the point of non-existance. Detecting something which doesn't exist sounds tricky to me. Antony. -- I vote no to this proposal to

Re: [Clamav-users] Installation

2003-09-20 Thread David Hawke
Christian Ista wrote: When I send e mail, I see it in : /var/log/qmail/current (see below) But the mail not arrive, could you help me to trace the mail. 0/20 @40003f6c6a5803d934e4 delivery 1: deferral: Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/ This looks like a qmail problem - does the

[Clamav-users] Cygwin compile bug in 0.60 (workaround)

2003-09-20 Thread Jeffry Johnston
Hi, I'm not sure if this is solved in a newer development version, so these instructions are mostly for those like me trying to figure out how to get this compile to work. First, upgrade to the latest compiler, etc, using the Cygwin installer. For reference, I used cygwin 1.5.4-1, gcc 3.2-3,

[Clamav-users] Re[3] : Installation

2003-09-20 Thread Christian Ista
This looks like a qmail problem - does the delivery Maildir directory exist? Is it structured properly? Yes, I didn't remove any folders. But I really don't know where search. It's may be a right access on a directory byt wich one ? Thanks,

Re: [Clamav-users] Re[3] : Installation

2003-09-20 Thread David Hawke
Christian Ista wrote: This looks like a qmail problem - does the delivery Maildir directory exist? Is it structured properly? Yes, I didn't remove any folders. But I really don't know where search. It's may be a right access on a directory byt wich one ? Check the qmail docs about setting up

RE: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread Diego d'Ambra
-Original Message- From: Noel Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20. september 2003 20:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 12:39:33PM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote: Thus, I would prefer that clamav be

RE: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread Diego d'Ambra
-Original Message- From: Antony Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20. september 2003 21:31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru On Saturday 20 September 2003 6:39 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote: I would prefer that clamav be able to

RE: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru

2003-09-20 Thread W.D. McKinney
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 16:40, Diego d'Ambra wrote: The current standpoint of the team maintaining the DB is to include signatures that also detect damaged viruses. These signatures are often used to detect e-mails that somehow lost the damaging part. This is to prevent users from getting

Re: [Clamav-users] Installation

2003-09-20 Thread Flinn Mueller
Is the new qmail-queue setuid? On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 03:15 PM, Christian Ista wrote: Hello, I have a server (Redhat 7.1). I installed that : - clamav - Qmail-queue - Qmail-scanner - some perl module All these elements are compiled and installed, I didn't have any problem. When I