On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Jim Redman wrote:
Folks,
I have to say, of all the lists I subscribe to, the vocal members
of this list are the most arrogant and insulting. However, I
consider comments such as Luca Gibelli's, bandwidth wasting, We
are happy to suffer this loss. and Dennis
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 10:24 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On Nov 7, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Jim Redman wrote:
Chris,
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Jim Redman wrote:
My observation is that of all the modern packages
On Nov 9, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Jim Redman wrote:
Your opinions, seem to be the prevalent attitude of the vocal
members of this list - if you don't suffer, it wasn't worth it.
His specific problem is he lacks the skill to install and manage
the product.
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Jim Maul wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Jim Redman wrote:
Folks,
I have to say, of all the lists I subscribe to, the vocal members
of this list are the most arrogant and insulting. However, I
consider comments such as Luca
On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:10 PM, jef moskot wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 11:07 AM, jef moskot wrote:
If some packages install without difficulty and others do not, then
how about we work together to bring the less efficient packages
in line
On Nov 10, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Gary V wrote:
Hmm, I wonder how many of the people who responded in one way or
another is actually familiar with the package in question. I
have been using Linux for a couple years now and have installed
thousands of packages. In general, I have not had any
On Nov 7, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Jim Redman wrote:
Chris,
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Jim Redman wrote:
Your opinions, seem to be the prevalent attitude of the vocal
members of this
list - if you don't suffer, it wasn't worth it.
I would disagree, in that I don't see
On Nov 7, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Jim Redman wrote:
Steve,
Steve Holdoway wrote:
You really do need to get out of the mindset that you don't
actually need to know what you're doing to administer a server. It
is *NOT* a trivial task, requires skills to support it, and years
of experience to
On May 17, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Jim Maul wrote:
Daniel T. Staal wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 12:12 pm, Jim Maul said:
If you are on a mail list such as this, think longer
and harder than usual. Then don't do it.
Right. That seems like an acceptable solution. Hell, why even have
On May 17, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 12:35 pm, Christopher X. Candreva said:
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
These days, being out of the office, or town, or country, is no
reason
for you to not be able to get your email, if you felt you
On May 17, 2006, at 12:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:27 AM 5/17/2006, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
Luckily, my spam filter catches them. That's all they are, anyway.
More
spam.
as opposed to annoying copyright notifications attached to email
published to mailing lists, that state
On May 17, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
That's where you're both wrong. It's an extension to instant
messaging. Why
Really ? That's amazing, that email managed to be invented at least a
decade
before IM and still extended
On May 17, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 1:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
At 10:31 AM 5/17/2006, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2006 1:23 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
as opposed to annoying copyright notifications attached to email
published to
On Aug 16, 2005, at 7:42 AM, Gian Carlo wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:35:29PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usually, they say it's not a good thing...
Sorry, but I rather put it online then sending it into a mailing-list.
Forgive me: maybe I was too purist.
I realize there are
On Aug 3, 2005, at 3:45 PM, mailing by Giardina Software wrote:
Hello list,
i must install clamav on my machine; what stable stable version can i
install for ppc platform??
PPC as in OS X? For that I'd use Fink to keep it up to date.
___
I just finished trying to upgrade ports on this FreeBSD system, and am
getting an unusual error in the logs for Amavisd-new.
Clam Antivirus-clamd: Error reading from /var/run/clamav/clamd:
Resource temporarily unavailable at (eval 53) line 253, GEN8 line 1.,
retrying (2)
Here's the clamd
On Jun 27, 2005, at 2:33 PM, D.J. Fan wrote:
I just finished trying to upgrade ports on this FreeBSD system, and
am getting an unusual error in the logs for Amavisd-new.
Clam Antivirus-clamd: Error reading from /var/run/clamav/clamd:
Resource temporarily unavailable at (eval 53) line
On Jun 17, 2005, at 4:21 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 12:08 -0800, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
IMHO, anything malicious sent though email should be detected by the
virus scanner.
I agree. What will it take for clamav to support all files/emails
deemed malicious?
A
On Jun 17, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Matthew Schumacher wrote:
Kelson wrote:
Niek wrote:
If you want protection from ad- spyware, get anti-spyware software.
I don't want to start up another flame war, but I really have to ask
this question:
Isn't email-borne spyware more in a virus scanner's
On Jun 17, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Patrick Andry wrote:
Does Exchange 2000 still accept mail for non-existent users, as it
does for
5.5?
Unless there's a feature/setting I'm missing, yes it does.
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
On Jun 16, 2005, at 4:37 PM, Robert G. Werner wrote:
Roger Rustad wrote:
Does anyone have any links to resources that deal with installing
ClamAV
on Exchange 200x servers? (Yes, I know that I can set up a ClamAV
proxy;
in this case, I want something I can install/do directly *on* the
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 17, 2005 9:01:33 AM EDT
To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Subject: [Clamav-users] Re: which scans mail
Reply-To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
I will be away from the office until Monday, June 27. If you need an
On Jun 6, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Michel Arboi wrote:
On 06/06/05, Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're distributing malware, so you're bad.
Clamav does not even catch half of the worms that are currently in the
wild. Most of them are dangerous IRC bots.
I was about to ask how I can help
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Michel Arboi wrote:
You're distributing malware, so you're bad.
Clamav does not even catch half of the worms that are currently in the
wild. Most of them are dangerous IRC bots.
I was about to ask how I can help the project. I will not. I
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Niek wrote:
On 6/6/2005 5:54 PM +0200, Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
Tomasz,
The best defence against such childish behaviour is to
consider the source and not bother to respond. You're above such
childish behaviour, the child is not.
Don't bother responding to it...
On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:26 PM, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:51:35 +0200
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
Michel Arboi wrote:
I was about to ask how I can help the project. I will not. I
think that
you don't need bad people.
Good bye.
You're a troll. Go
On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:49 PM, Carl Thompson wrote:
I've had lots of problems with clamav-milter (running inet or .sock)
crashing. I know that .82 didn't have issues like this and I would
like to track them down and post any results I can find to possibly
help the developers.
Is there any
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
The devel's time is not infinite. I am sure most of them do have
other jobs and things to do also. Do stop trolling and just ask them
how to submit the virii :) ( No use being of a subtle disposition on
this list
On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
If he already did and hadn't gotten feedback, maybe there could be
some
people who would coordinate some form of feedback system on whether a
sample is in the works or in the queue or something like
On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
My wife and I just had a newborn baby boy. The first and foremost
thing to learn...tolerance. He cries because it's the only way he can
communicate, it's frustrating because we have to interpret what he
means
On May 16, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Most of the spam I've gotten the last three days is from comcast.net.
Apparently they allow their customers to send out to port 25. They
should
lock that down so that spam goes out through their own servers so they
can
feel the pain when they
On May 17, 2005, at 2:17 AM, Alan Premselaar wrote:
Jef Poskanzer wrote:
..snip...
And finally, if you want to run a check on the HELO string, I find
that just rejecting outside connections that claim a HELO of your own
hostname gets rid of a very high proportion of crapmail. This
very simple
On May 17, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Bart Silverstrim said:
To me, that price is learning how to do it right. Price isn't always
monetary.
I wouldn't argue with the idea of having to tell your provider that
you
need your particular connection unfiltered and leave it unfiltered
On May 17, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Morgan Smith wrote:
Jef Poskanzer wrote:
Hey, has anyone made or run across a signature file that matches
all windows executables and all archive formats? Seems like this
would be fairly easy to create.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 17, 2005, at 12:17 PM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Maybe even do a reverse check to see if there's a mail server on the
sending system...how many systems would break doing a check like that?
The sending server isn't guaranteed to be a MX, so any DNS MX or
reverse
On May 17, 2005, at 3:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Damian Menscher wrote:
Would the person who implements this do me a favor and make the virus
pretend to be a viagra spam? If we format the hard drives of people
that buy from spammers, and the media picks up on it, then
On May 17, 2005, at 3:39 PM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For email transfer and MTA's alike, putting SPF in DNS to help
authenticate the source is a step in the right direction. If SPF
is a
good idea, and it is dns based, then so should forward-and-back
lookups.
If additional
On May 17, 2005, at 5:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perhaps it's time clamav-users be split into clamav-help and
clamav-discussion. something like that maybe.
but the list is sagging under the weight of all this metadiscussion.
am i the only one growing weary of not just meta-discussion, but
On May 17, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Bill Taroli wrote:
Steffen Winther Soerensen wrote:
This seems more like a discussion for another mailing list or a Usenet
group on MTAs/SMTP IMHO
I don't disagree... are there any good ones for SPF or similar
debates? I do think -- much as you'd find in the Amavisd
On May 17, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Damian Menscher wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Damian Menscher said:
Since you are speaking for all of us what do we think of your 5 line
sig?
I bet some of us think it sux.
As do I. But I think you'll agree it is about as dense as possible
given
What is the current database version from freshclam for people out
there? I've been getting a huge number of bounces with german
subjects, addressed to people with usernames beginning with 3d (just
starting to investigate what is going on with this...) but the past few
freshclam runs have
Some more info...
I see in our amavis logs on our ClamAV system (postfix pre-filter
FreeBSD for email) this kind of listing...
/usr/local/sbin/amavisd[35705]: (35705-10) Blocked INFECTED
(Worm.Sober.P), [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
f-Ge2_bV@address snipped, Hits: -, tag=0, tag2=4, kill=4, L/0/0/0
That
On May 16, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Mike Blonder wrote:
I am also getting inundated with German gibberish spam. Would you mind
explaining the significance (if any) of the email address that you
posted? I
am finding that the German Gibberish garbage is spoofing a different
email
address with each
On May 16, 2005, at 9:59 AM, Mike Blonder wrote:
OK.
I think I get it. You had identified the oncbuv.com
http://oncbuv.comaddress as a source for the
sober.p garbage earlier and now it is showing up with the German
gibberish
garbage.
Sort of. I can't find oncbuv.com so it's spoofed. The IP
On May 16, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Rainer Zocholl wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Bart Silverstrim) 16.05.05 08:51
Maybe you should have simply entered it into google?
I'm quite sure that google would have lead you to the right place.
Yes, google can search for german strings too! IMOH ;-)
I did enter
On May 16, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Rainer Zocholl wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Bart Silverstrim) 16.05.05 08:27
What is the current database version from freshclam for people out
there?
It's always shown in the bottom line of
http://www.clamav.net/
Latest database release is: main.cvd 31 daily.cvd 879
On May 16, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Randal, Phil wrote:
It's easy to block.
Check the handler's Diary at http://isc.sans.org/ and follow the links.
Thank you, that's my next task when I get a block of time today.
Thanks again!
___
On May 16, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Thomas Hochstein wrote:
Bart Silverstrim schrieb:
That address had been hammering us over and over for awhile with
sober.p. Now it's become quiet.
Yes. Now the infected hosts are sending out spam containing (very)
right-wing political propaganda.
Don't read German
On May 16, 2005, at 1:41 PM, John Jolet wrote:
This email, for instance was sent from a properly configured mta
running antispam and antivirus scanning in BOTH directions, from a
dynamic ip. If my wife sends email from her computer, it goes to the
isp's mta, which does inbound only scanning.
On May 16, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Rainer Zocholl wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED](Bart Silverstrim) 16.05.05 11:05
I did enter it in when I first discovered it, but there were no hits.
Ok, next time mention it ;-)
Here I thought it was common sense now! :-)
Apparently it will be very hard to block if it's
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should be
able to cope with all types of mail, irrelevant of
(creation|submission)
method.
But...if they're
On May 5, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Bart Silverstrim said:
On May 5, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
as it is harder to scan those messages for viruses
Nonsense. Mail is mail. If you are running a mailserver, it should
be
able to cope with all types
On May 5, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
My webmail is configured to use our standard smtp servers for all
inbound/outbound mail. It really isn't all that difficult.
My understanding was that we were talking about people accessing Yahoo
or Hotmail from work
On May 5, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
This is actually two separate scenarios.
That was Daniel's fault instigated by his being vague :)
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he
would know that only a great fool would reach for what
On May 4, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 16:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or
fax
But you haven't given your telephone and fax number, so how can you
expect
anyone to do
On Apr 19, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 11:52 -0600, lists wrote:
How should I submit this to see if it is a virus?
Make certain detectbrokenexecutable is enabled.
Stupid question but I thought I might as well ask anyway...going in on
my own system to enable
On Apr 19, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Kelson wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Do I want to remove the hash before DisableDefaultScanOptions in
order to get the
snip
sections to work?
No. This was discussed yesterday. There are options that are enabled
by default, and DisableDefaultOptions wipes those
On Apr 15, 2005, at 9:39 AM, Joanna Roman wrote:
Can phishing be considered one kind of spam ?
Please no...please please no
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
Hello all...
Question...I recently tried booting up with the Ultimate Boot CD that
included INSERT Linux as one of the images. I booted to INSERT, ran
freshclam, then proceeded to scan a hard disk on which Windows 98 was
installed. I had a number of hits showing up within the Windows/system
On Apr 15, 2005, at 10:45 AM, BitFuzzy wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I had a number of hits showing up within the Windows/system directory.
Heh, didn't Norton detect windows as a virus at one time?
I remember there was something that reported Windows as a virus. I
thought it was some old AV
On Apr 15, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:53:11 -0400
Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all...
Question...I recently tried booting up with the Ultimate Boot CD that
included INSERT Linux as one of the images. I booted to INSERT, ran
freshclam
On Mar 21, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:06:02 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian Mehnle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Probably more like: can we have 'technical-threats.cvd' and
'non-technical-threats.cvd' instead of
On Mar 22, 2005, at 6:35 AM, Dennis Davis wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Rob MacGregor wrote:
From: Rob MacGregor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:58:17 +
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Report Phishing attacks?
Reply-To: ClamAV users ML
On Mar 22, 2005, at 4:58 AM, Rob MacGregor wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:01:48 -0400, Samuel Benzaquen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can also say that they don't want to compete against commercial AV
vendors
as I have read here 2^32 times that we should use not _only_ clamav,
but a
list of AVs to
On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Dennis Davis wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
From: Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:40:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Report Phishing attacks?
...
I believe
On Mar 22, 2005, at 9:43 AM, BitFuzzy wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Personally, my gripe is that the product is called ClamAV. If it's
expanding it's mission to protect people from everything called
malware, I'd change the name to something that indicates it's a
malware detector
On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:04 PM, John Madden wrote:
In any case, Clam is a user supported project. ALL viruses are
submitted
by
end users. So, the only way response will get any better is if you
submit
new viruses you receive that get by clam.
It's not going to 'improve' any other way.
Well,
On Feb 16, 2005, at 3:13 PM, vaida bogdan wrote:
Hy, I use postfix+mailscanner on my mail server to block a lot of
virii comming from my internal network. I would like to implement a
solution to block virii traffic on the internal gateway. The network
looks like this:
WIN-
WIN- GW1-
On Jan 31, 2005, at 1:35 PM, Sam wrote:
Came across this and thought many of you may enjoy it.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1756636,00.asp?
kc=ewnws013105dtx1k599
Is it better than the previous one I didn't think we'd ever see as
working?
Write virus
email to random people with
On Jan 27, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Damian Menscher wrote:
There was a discussion about this several months ago. Unfortunately,
many people (including part of the signature-generation team) are too
dogmatic about their feelings that phishing is bad, so we should
block it to look at it logically.
Can
On Jan 27, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
No problem. As a bonus we will create a signature for your domain name
;-)
Just kidding! Honest! I'd NEVER think of having Windows thought of as
a virus... :-)
___
On Jan 27, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:00 -0500
Adam Tauno Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just my two cents - I agree with the other guy. CLAM should blocks
virii and worms, and leave SPAM to something else. Just think of the
Phishing IS NOT spam! Is that
On Nov 16, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Minica, Nelson (EDS) wrote:
1024 viruses blocked in the last month (after 152,000 emails blocked
by RBL's,etc)
68 were phishing attacks my users appreciated not seeing
Then SpamAssassin flagged 1500 and Mimedefang removed 1300
attachments
Overlapping products and
On Nov 15, 2004, at 8:26 AM, jef moskot wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Trog wrote:
For example, the last Bagle (or Bofra) outbreak simply sent an email
to
it's target victims, who then have to click on a link to download the
Worm. According to your definition, that is a 'social' attack, and
should
On Nov 15, 2004, at 10:40 AM, Dennis Skinner wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Besides, if mail servers started
using SPF (or similar authentication techniques) to verify envelope
sender
addresses, whoever publishes SPF records for his domains would be
Not to start another flame war, but I find it
On Nov 15, 2004, at 11:14 AM, jef moskot wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I'd say leave it to the antispammers to hammer out, and to the people
who focus on bayes filters...
In my case, if Clam has a chance to see the phishing e-mail, the
anti-spam
tactics have already failed
On Nov 15, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that, as yourself and others have mentioned, the
distinction between the different categories are dependant upon
personal
interpretation. What one classes as social engineering, someone else
may
class
On Nov 15, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Trog wrote:
Not one of the Clam developers have proposed adding general spam
detection to ClamAV.
You're right. This was an idea being proposed, I thought...a
suggestion. Isn't this something worth going over on a users list as
discussion?
Sorry if not... :-/
On Nov 15, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:48:35 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian Mehnle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there definitely is a distinction between technical attacks and
social engineering attacks, even though they're somewhat overlapping.
I can't see
On Nov 15, 2004, at 12:25 PM, Chris Meadors wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 12:12 -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
If it's a bunch of flashy graphics telling you to visit a website for
fantastic deals on hiding money from third world countries while
getting fantastic mortgage rates on your pen1s
On Nov 15, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
clamav kills bad things - that's good, and I'd like it to be able to
continue to kill bad things in the same expedient manner that it has in
the past.
That's not entirely true. There are people who installed it on Windows
and Windows still
On Nov 15, 2004, at 12:32 PM, Dennis Skinner wrote:
How little user interaction is required before it is considered a
technical enough? Require the user to open the attachment? Require
the user to pop their mail?
Technically, most viruses these days are social engineered in some
way. Unlike
On Nov 15, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Matt wrote:
If the standard database was segregated, some people would inevitably
cock up their configs and run with partial protection. This can cause
problems not only for themselves, but others, in the case of
propogation.
Whitelist all traffic you want to allow!
On Nov 15, 2004, at 2:02 PM, jef moskot wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
...if you're going to start moving it into another direction, it may
be
best to fork that and leave the original recipe alone until the new
direction...
I think you're overstating what the ClamAV team
On Nov 15, 2004, at 2:41 PM, Ken Jones wrote:
Phising poses a threat to your users. The line between malware and
virus'
is a very grey one.
Phishing is a threat if they supply information. How do you stop
people from voluntarily giving information over? Scan every mail for
text or formatting
On Nov 15, 2004, at 4:27 PM, Dennis Skinner wrote:
Dave Goodrich wrote:
My preference has been stated. I would prefer SpamAssassin do the
puzzle solving of message bodies, headers, URI lookups, message
obfuscation, etc and let ClamAV do the signature matching of
attachments.
SA uses many more
On Nov 15, 2004, at 4:39 PM, Kevin W. Gagel wrote:
If I could use a single package to virus scan, spam scan and
protect my users and company against phishing attacks then I
would gladly use it (provided of course it was reliable).
If I could use one operating system free from most bugs and
On Nov 15, 2004, at 4:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I find it interesting though that I've yet to hear from anyone
commenting on my proposal to create a filter that will extract and
convert all emails into pure text, or reformat it so only certain
things can get through
On Nov 15, 2004, at 5:35 PM, Nigel Horne wrote:
On Monday 15 Nov 2004 9:23 pm, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Since I don't know any of the developers
You can find our names in .../AUTHORS.
-Bart
-Nigel
Well...I still don't *KNOW* you :-)
Nice to kinda sorta meet you though. You and the rest
On Nov 15, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
I find it interesting though that I've yet to hear from anyone
commenting on my proposal to create a filter that will extract and
convert all emails into pure text, or reformat it so only certain
things can get through
On Nov 14, 2004, at 9:26 AM, Steve Basford wrote:
since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoever in
a
technical sense.
I'm certainly
On Nov 14, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Steve Basford wrote:
since ClamAV reached v0.80, I am using it to scan and reject e-mail
messages. Today I noticed that ClamAV also detects phishing attacks.
Phishing is pure social engineering and poses no threat whatsoever
in a
technical sense.
On Nov 14, 2004, at 10:01 AM, John Jolet wrote:
On the issue of manually reviewing the mails to submitisn't this
the
purpose of the quarantine directory? When it detects a phishing
malware,
look at the file in the quarantine directory.
I think he's thinking that this is more time and labor
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote:
Matt wrote:
What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still
need
to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now.
The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell
and spend hours
On Oct 5, 2004, at 6:08 AM, gillian wrote:
Thank you so much for your response, but boy, now I am confused. Are
you
saying I should be using amavis not clamav? This is the 2nd response
with an amavis url in it.
Amavis is a program that can work in conjunction with ClamAV.
Most UNIX systems work
On Sep 30, 2004, at 3:26 AM, Damian Menscher wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... It's interesting that viruses are finally starting to implement
what
we were joking about in 1995 at high school...
I'm impressed with how far we've come. Less than a year ago, I could
most
On Sep 30, 2004, at 1:08 PM, ralf bosz wrote:
I have just upgraded to the latest version of ClamAV that is said to
be able
to detect the new JPEG vulnerability. I'm using ClamAV with
MailScanner to
scan e-mail. How can I test to see if ClamAV is indeed detecting the
JPEG
exploit?
Download an
On Sep 24, 2004, at 7:55 AM, Joël Brogniart wrote:
Hi there.
I'm trying to install clamav on an Apple XServer with Mac OS X 10.3.5
(and all updates today).
My first try is with september 2003 dev tools installer. A second try
with XCode Tools 1.5 gave the same result. The third gave better
On Sep 22, 2004, at 5:33 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
He has to link the database *somehow* into his program. Look up what
the GPL has to say about that.
And: Hey, if you do not like the license of a program - do not use it.
It is simple as that. If you want to use it - fulfill the license.
I think
On Sep 22, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Brian Bruns wrote:
Security through obsecurity... How comforting.
Misguided yet implemented by so many...
Either use the DB as the authors tell you you can use it, or don't use
it at all. It is very simple to understand. How would you like it if
you were the ones
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
