I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
upgraded just stops working.
This is further aggravated by the fact that Exim does not know
- Original Message
From: Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2008 6:27:56 AM
I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
options in such a way that breaks anything
GESBBB wrote:
Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to installing a
newer version?
Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
format, or doing the many other things I suggested that other things
abide by?
Colin Alston wrote:
ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
upgraded just stops working.
I agree that this is extremely hostile behaviour on the part of Clam
developers.
A friendlier approach:
Yes, I know I am about to contradict myself.
GESBBB wrote:
Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to
installing a newer version?
Anyone using a package manager will have the new software installed before
they can read the documentation.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Colin
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
It IS a 0.x release. Once he hit 1.x I'll be a lot less forgiving, but as
long as we're at 0.x I expect this sort of thing -- and still think it's
better than the next best alternative.
Plenty of things have yet to go past 0.x and are many many years old.
Quoting Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
upgraded just stops working.
Well, maybe your automatically upgrading software needs improvment,
or just maybe you
Quoting Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
format
No, they are quite capable of doing this, but the choose not to. That
is their right and privilege. And doing so might slow or stop progress.
Remember, there is not even a
Quoting Christopher X. Candreva [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to
installing a newer version?
Anyone using a package manager will have the new software installed before
they can read the documentation.
Not true. I have a package manager
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Well, maybe your automatically upgrading software needs improvment,
or just maybe you should follow standard best practices and not do
automatic upgrades on a critical/important production system?
I partly agree with that, but I also think that ClamAV developers need
to
Quoting Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Plenty of things have yet to go past 0.x and are many many years old.
So?
Considering Clam is in really abundant use I think version numbers are
little excuse, so it would be nice if sysadmins didn't get kicked in the
groin every time a release
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Eric Rostetter
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:20 PM
To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Stop it!
Quoting Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ClamAV has
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
format
No, they are quite capable of doing this, but the choose not to. That
is their right and privilege. And doing so might slow or stop
Le Fri 3/10/2008, Aécio F. Neto disait
IMHO, this is one of the reasons free software doesn't go to the masses.
I have worked in both worlds - proprietary and free software - and this
last one lacks in many aspects that proprietary code takes care of:
being friendly.
There is a myth in
- Original Message -
I want two things out of ClamAV: (1) Security and (2) Least Surprise.
So far, it's not doing spectacularly well on either.
---snip---
team for their software and all their hard work. My comments are intended
merely to help improve the software, not as gratuitous
Erwan David wrote:
I never found comemrcial sftware being friendly to the user : bugs are rarely
acknowledged;
, licence management is a nightmare (should I se open, OEM or box licence in
this configuration ?) etc...
One more reason free / open source should be friendly.
Why not? That's
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Not true. I have a package manager installed on all my machines. But they
do NOT do automatic updates... The above is only true of those who have
a package manager installed and configured to do automatic upgrades.
But you are on this mailing list,
Colin Alston wrote:
I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
Hay, maybe the packagers could write a script or something to indicate a
problem with the current configuration when it is being installed. Then
users could take the appropriate action ASAP instead of
Quoting David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I partly agree with that, but I also think that ClamAV developers need
to make their software more admin-friendly.
I'm sure they will eventually.
The canonical situation
is one in which a small (but technically adept) company is responsible
for
Hi,
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ClamAV has been continuously and repetitively adjusting configuration
options in such a way that breaks anything which is automatically
upgraded just stops working.
Why not have a scan for obsolete or bad parameter usage, if
Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
- Original Message -
I want two things out of ClamAV: (1) Security and (2) Least Surprise.
So far, it's not doing spectacularly well on either.
---snip---
team for their software and all their hard work. My comments are intended
merely to help improve the
Eric Rostetter wrote:
The canonical situation
is one in which a small (but technically adept) company is responsible
for hundreds of Clam installations for technically naive customers.
Maybe you should manage their installations for them?
We do! That's the point. WHEN (not IF) we have to
Quoting Rick Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Maybe you need to talk to exim about this then?
Exim does exactly what it should when the clam daemon goes missing, it
I was going by the original posters comment that exim does not
know how to gracefully handle failures of clamav daemon. Since
exim
Quoting Aécio F. Neto [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there any reason Clam are incapable of stabilising on a configuration
format
No, they are quite capable of doing this, but the choose not to. That
is their right and privilege. And doing so might slow or stop progress.
Note, I was just
Quoting Christopher X. Candreva [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not true. I have a package manager installed on all my machines. But they
do NOT do automatic updates... The above is only true of those who have
a package manager installed and configured to do automatic upgrades.
But you are on this
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Maybe something along the lines of automake that can take
old versions of a config file, along with some rules, and use it to build a
current version.
DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) did this for years back in the 70's
and 80's, so it is certainly doable... Why
Quoting David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Where did I insult? (The OP was not me.)
I didn't mean to imply you insulted them. I was pointing out that
the OP did, and that it is inappropriate to do so. Didn't mean
to imply anything about you personally.
I have a problem with people
On 2008/10/03 05:57 PM James Kosin wrote:
Colin Alston wrote:
I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
Hay, maybe the packagers could write a script or something to indicate a
problem with the current configuration when it is being installed. Then
users could
On 2008/10/03 06:35 PM Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Where did I insult? (The OP was not me.)
I didn't mean to imply you insulted them. I was pointing out that
the OP did, and that it is inappropriate to do so. Didn't mean
to imply anything about you
Colin Alston wrote:
On 2008/10/03 05:57 PM James Kosin wrote:
Colin Alston wrote:
I've had enough now, and I want all you ClamAV people to listen up.
Hay, maybe the packagers could write a script or something to indicate a
problem with the current configuration when it is being installed.
Colin Alston wrote:
Still, no one has managed to answer just *why* in a simple key-value
configuration file with no option dependence has to refuse to start
when it encounters an unknown option.
Well, there are two cases:
1) A completely unknown option: In this case, I agree that Clam
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Colin Alston wrote:
Still, no one has managed to answer just *why* in a simple key-value
configuration file with no option dependence has to refuse to start
when it encounters an unknown option.
Well, there are two
Aecio F. Neto wrote:
1) A completely unknown option: In this case, I agree that Clam should
abort after writing errors to stderr and syslog. A completely unknown
option indicates a serious problem; the configuration file could never
have been valid.
Why? Ignore it and move to next one.
I
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:35 PM, David F. Skoll [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Aecio F. Neto wrote:
1) A completely unknown option: In this case, I agree that Clam should
abort after writing errors to stderr and syslog. A completely unknown
option indicates a serious problem; the configuration
CONCRETE SUGGESTION FOR CLAMAV DEVELOPERS (and anyone else with
minimal script writing skills):
CLAMWATCH service.
Either as cron job, or constantly running monitor daemon.
- Checks if clamd service is running (if enabled in startup files)
- Tests clamdscan with simple clean file
Charles Gregory wrote:
But when a mail filter 'fails', mail goes through UNFILTERED, and
UNNOTICED. This is just WRONG. Sorry, it is.
That's not Clam's fault. On our product, if Clam dies, then mail is
tempfailed. We **never** pass mail that has not been virus-scanned.
If you have a filter
David F. Skoll wrote:
I suspect the Clam developers do it the way they do to force users to
look at (and think about) their configuration files. This is a laudable
goal, but really interferes with usability and creates problems where there
need not be any. So I ask the developers (and I'd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Eric Rostetter
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 1:09 PM
To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Stop it!
Quoting Rick Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Maybe you
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, David F. Skoll wrote:
That's not Clam's fault. On our product, if Clam dies, then mail is
tempfailed.
I suppose you have 24/7 tech support. We go home on weekends. I don't need
to tempfail all mail until Monday for a config deprecation. So with
respect, this is one case
Clam developers need to do serious work in two areas: Security and usability.
I hope they will.
Agreed. Unfortunately, this is a general problem with OpenSource.
As a programmer for already over 30 years, I am still wondering that the terms
Usability, user-friendliness, egoless-programming are
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:56 PM, reiner otto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clam developers need to do serious work in two areas: Security and
usability.
I hope they will.
Agreed. Unfortunately, this is a general problem with OpenSource.
As a programmer for already over 30 years, I am still
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, David F. Skoll wrote:
That's not Clam's fault. On our product, if Clam dies, then mail is
tempfailed.
I suppose you have 24/7 tech support. We go home on weekends. I don't need
to tempfail all mail until Monday for a config deprecation. So with
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
Christopher X. Candreva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GESBBB wrote:
Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation prior to
installing a newer version?
Anyone using a package manager will have the new software installed
before they can read the
I am sure 99% of package managers have a blocklist of some kind.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
Christopher X. Candreva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GESBBB wrote:
Is there any reason you cannot read the documentation
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:16:31 +0200
Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What seems bogus is why someone would flippantly hand wave a problem
with the arbitrary reason that the version number is still 1.
Why not? Google with their Beta-4-Ever approach has been doing it for
years. :-)
--
Jerry
On 2008/10/04 12:17 AM Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:16:31 +0200
Colin Alston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What seems bogus is why someone would flippantly hand wave a problem
with the arbitrary reason that the version number is still 1.
Why not? Google with their Beta-4-Ever approach
46 matches
Mail list logo
