Dennis Peterson wrote:
Christoph Cordes wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
I already know the question is difficult, but it isn't impossible
to answer as there are other AV vendors who have a solution for
this particular problem if the article is to be believed.
So you want to know
G.W. Haywood wrote:
Hi there,
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 Gerard Seibert wrote:
I would rather not use the '--force-scan' option since I am not
particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail. Perhaps someone has
an idea how to correct this problem.
Because you don't scan outgoing mail
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Christoph Cordes wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
I already know the question is difficult, but it isn't impossible
to answer as there are other AV vendors who have a solution for
this particular problem if the article is to be believed.
So you want
We are running Clamav with MailScanner, and the server load is very high.
I have read here and elsewhere that using clamdscan and the clamd daemon
will run better than using clamscan. But I can't find where or how to make
that switch. It isn't in any of the config files on the server. Is this a
Gerard Seibert wrote:
On Sunday October 22, 2006 at 09:49:38 (PM) Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
I would rather not use the '--force-scan' option since I am not
particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail. Perhaps someone has
an idea how to correct this problem.
Because
Bill Berg wrote:
We are running Clamav with MailScanner, and the server load is very high.
I have read here and elsewhere that using clamdscan and the clamd daemon
will run better than using clamscan. But I can't find where or how to make
that switch. It isn't in any of the config files on the
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:53:30AM -0400, Gerard Seibert wrote:
Anyway, we send out several times a week flyers to our customers. These
mailings range from 750 to 2000 messages per run. To scan 2000 identical
messages is insane, not to mention a total waste of system
- Original Message -
Dennis Peterson Gerard Seibert wrote:
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
you. My usual response when I read this kind of thing is to just go
ahead and blacklist you now rather than later. Please practice safe
messaging.
On Monday October 23, 2006 at 11:49:47 (AM) Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
On Sunday October 22, 2006 at 09:49:38 (PM) Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
I would rather not use the '--force-scan' option since I am not
particularly interested in scanning
Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
- Original Message -
Dennis Peterson Gerard Seibert wrote:
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
you. My usual response when I read this kind of thing is to just go
ahead and blacklist you now rather than later. Please practice
Gerard Seibert wrote:
On Monday October 23, 2006 at 11:49:47 (AM) Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
On Sunday October 22, 2006 at 09:49:38 (PM) Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
I would rather not use the '--force-scan' option since I am not
particularly interested
On Oct 22, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
[ ...heated debate aside :-), these questions are interesting... ]
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning?
Yes. I've seen employees download viral mail from some other service
(AOL, fastmail.fm, gmail, whatever) to their
On Monday October 23, 2006 at 01:20:54 (PM) Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Oct 22, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
[ ...heated debate aside :-), these questions are interesting... ]
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning?
Yes. I've seen employees download viral mail from
On Oct 23, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Gerard Seibert wrote:
It doesn't stop all potential problems with outbound email from your
domain, but together with adding SPF records and using a firewall to
block outbound port 25 except from your legitimate mail relay, you
can do a lot to keep your domain from
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(I can't block senders just because they don't have reverse DNS
configured, or because forward and reverse DNS does not match.)
Chuck,
Yes you can block them if they don't have a revers DNS. No you shouldn't
block them if the
Chuck Swiger wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning?
Yes. I've seen employees download viral mail from some other service
(AOL, fastmail.fm, gmail, whatever) to their corporate desktop, get
infected, and have their machine start spewing malicious
On Oct 23, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
From: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(I can't block senders just because they don't have reverse DNS
configured, or because forward and reverse DNS does not match.)
Chuck,
Yes you can block them if they don't have a revers DNS. No you
Hi All,
i've just installed ClamAV 0.88.5 together with sendmail/milter in a
slackware server.
It worked fine this weekend but today, as traffic has grown,
clamav-milter started dying without leaving any clear error message.
The messages it's left in log were:
Oct 22 04:44:28 manguinhos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Berg wrote:
We are running Clamav with MailScanner, and the server load is very high.
I have read here and elsewhere that using clamdscan and the clamd daemon
will run better than using clamscan. But I can't find where or how to make
that
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:29:20AM -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote:
That's not the question. The question as asked by management is Why
does ClamAV report it doesn't catch this virus while these others do?
and my answer is I don't know - and the ClamAV people don't know,
either.
For this
Actually, as per another reply, I was able to locate in the
/usr/lib/MailScanner/clamav-wrapper file
the lines where it invoked clamscan. I was able to change this to clamdscan
and knocked the
server load down from around 8 to 1.5, although I'm not really sure that
clamdscan is doing anything.
The
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
you.
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning? Isn't the
vast majority of viruses and spam
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:50:12AM -0400, Tom Metro wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
you.
For any small shop that keeps a close
Tom Metro wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail from
you.
That makes me think of two things:
1 - The corollary to that
Tom Metro wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail
from you.
Is there really much practical value to outbound scanning? Isn't the
vast majority of
Don Russell wrote:
Tom Metro wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
...I am not particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail.
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan incoming mail
from you.
That makes me think of two things:
1 - The corollary to
On Sunday October 22, 2006 at 09:49:38 (PM) Dennis Peterson wrote:
Gerard Seibert wrote:
I would rather not use the '--force-scan' option since I am not
particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail. Perhaps someone has
an idea how to correct this problem.
Because you don't
Hi there,
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 Gerard Seibert wrote:
I would rather not use the '--force-scan' option since I am not
particularly interested in scanning outgoing mail. Perhaps someone has
an idea how to correct this problem.
Because you don't scan outgoing mail I have to scan
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:53:30AM -0400, Gerard Seibert wrote:
Anyway, we send out several times a week flyers to our customers. These
mailings range from 750 to 2000 messages per run. To scan 2000 identical
messages is insane, not to mention a total waste of system resources.
Other than
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:53:30AM -0400, Gerard Seibert wrote:
Anyway, we send out several times a week flyers to our customers. These
mailings range from 750 to 2000 messages per run. To scan 2000 identical
messages is insane, not to mention a total waste of system resources.
Other than
On Monday October 23, 2006 at 07:01:47 (AM) Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:53:30AM -0400, Gerard Seibert wrote:
Anyway, we send out several times a week flyers to our customers. These
mailings range from 750 to 2000 messages per run. To scan 2000 identical
Clamav-milter keeps exiting on me, here's the entry in the log:
LibClamAV debug:
/var/tmp//clamav-404c95520e84423fd3e77caacd7b08e0/main.db loaded
LibClamAV debug: Initializing md5 list structure
LibClamAV debug:
/var/tmp//clamav-404c95520e84423fd3e77caacd7b08e0/main.hdb loaded
LibClamAV debug:
It seems that I am blocking power point files. I know these files do not
have a virus. How can I allow the power point type through?
Thanks
Jeff
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
33 matches
Mail list logo
