On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 at 12:11:16 +0600, Kev wrote:
I have my system runing fine with clarmav and Clamfilter
(http://www.ensita.net/products/clamfilter/) that check virus on SMTP
traffic on a ClarkConnect 2.2 BOX (RedHat 9 Kernel)
[...]
i send a test virus via clarm
File Attachment:
I have a question regarding the --noreject man page entry, specifically the
last line:
-N, --noreject
When clamav-milter processes an e-mail which contains a
virus it rejects the e-mail by using the SMTP code 550
or 554 depending on the state machine.
- Original Message -
From: Nigel Horne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Clamav-milter not loading?
What operating system?
Look for clues in the syslog (you have LogSyslog and
On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 16:41, Josh Malinski wrote:
I also figured out what my problem was. I was launching the clamd under the
same socket name as the clamav-milter. This of course will not work. Also
per your suggestions I changed the permissions to the sockets and took out
the bounce as
On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 11:32 -0500, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
It is not immediately obvious why, if you are NOT generating new bounce
e-mails (which no one should be doing), you should also be silently
discarding viruses instead of returning a 550/554 error code.
It would seem to me
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
That's still back-scatter, just one relay removed. If Lucy is infected,
and sends mail with Mary's return address through Lucy's usual mail
relay, then when the relay gets a 554 it will send the DSN back to Mary,
often including the virus. Mary
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
That's still back-scatter, just one relay removed. If Lucy is
infected, and sends mail with Mary's return address through Lucy's
usual mail relay, then when the relay gets a 554 it will send the DSN
back to
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
Pardon me if I'm confusing a discussion here with something from either
the spamassassin or SPAM-l lists, but every discussion I've read says
that returning a 550 at your gateway is the prefered method, as it
blocks actual bad stuff, while
