folks:
here is a tool to split up mailboxes (like those used by thunderbird)
and scan the mails individually. there is another similar tool using
perl in the archives, but this only uses bash commands, formail, and
clamscan.
Thanks gitzo, this will definitely help me out.
-p
* On 27/08/06 15:02 -0400, Dan MacNeil wrote:
|
| See bottom of thread for thoughts
|
| the circumstances arose where mail folders are kept
| from a pre-clamav time, or there was an issue with the clamav setup at
| the time, or clamav was not scanning incoming mail
|
| I have to say that while
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:25:54AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
* On 27/08/06 15:02 -0400, Dan MacNeil wrote:
| However, I beg to differ on the point that post-delivery scanning is
| useless (dumb???). We run clam through amavis. We also clamscan our mail
| spool when fresh-clam gives
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
* On 27/08/06 15:02 -0400, Dan MacNeil wrote:
|
| See bottom of thread for thoughts
|
| the circumstances arose where mail folders are kept
| from a pre-clamav time, or there was an issue with the clamav setup at
| the time, or clamav was
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:35:56AM +0300, Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:25:54AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
* On 27/08/06 15:02 -0400, Dan MacNeil wrote:
| However, I beg to differ on the point that post-delivery scanning is
| useless (dumb???). We run clam
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Bit Fuzzy wrote:
As for the situation, we've been using ClamAV for going on 3 years now,
and I have never (I repeat never) seen this occur.
Occasionally there are major virus flare-ups (and often there are phishing
scams and such) that occur before an appropriate signature
jef moskot wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Bit Fuzzy wrote:
As for the situation, we've been using ClamAV for going on 3 years now,
and I have never (I repeat never) seen this occur.
Occasionally there are major virus flare-ups (and often there are phishing
scams and such) that occur before an
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, jef moskot wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Bit Fuzzy wrote:
As for the situation, we've been using ClamAV for going on 3 years now,
and I have never (I repeat never) seen this occur.
Occasionally there are major virus flare-ups (and often there are phishing
scams and such)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jef moskot wrote:
Occasionally there are major virus flare-ups (and often there are phishing
scams and such) that occur before an appropriate signature is in place.
When do you actually scan then? Do you scan when the email is retrieved by
the
jef moskot wrote:
I have a small script I modify to do the job of lifting the offending
messages out of the mbox files. On a large scale, there's the obvious
problem of modifying files that could be in use or files that the user
could modifying during the stripping process.
I can monitor
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see this working in a smaller environment although I still think
it is less then ideal...
I think we all agree with that, but the world is a somewhat less than
ideal place and there are some cases where such a tool is useful. Thanks
to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jef moskot wrote:
I have a small script I modify to do the job of lifting the offending
messages out of the mbox files. On a large scale, there's the obvious
problem of modifying files that could be in use or files that the user
could modifying during the stripping
Jim Maul wrote:
You seem to be missing the point here. Nowhere that i saw did anyone
say that they are scanning the mailboxes INSTEAD of at smtp time. This
mailbox scanning is in addition to smtp scanning. I think anyone could
agree that additional scanning is beneficial (although not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
You seem to be missing the point here. Nowhere that i saw did anyone
say that they are scanning the mailboxes INSTEAD of at smtp time.
This mailbox scanning is in addition to smtp scanning. I think anyone
could agree that additional scanning is
Jim Maul wrote:
Perhaps, but i read it differently.
Fair enough.
But anyway, why would you want to perform additional virus scanning of
mailboxes if it is all scanned upon arrival anyway? The only reason
I could think is if virus definitions were updated after some malware
had already
gritzo wrote:
folks:
here is a tool to split up mailboxes (like those used by thunderbird)
and scan the mails individually. there is another similar tool using
perl in the archives, but this only uses bash commands, formail, and
clamscan.
This seems to me to be rather late into the scanning
/
here is a tool to split up mailboxes (like those used by thunderbird)
and scan the mails individually. /
This seems to me to be rather late into the scanning process - the mail
has already been accepted and in fact delivered and now you are going to
look for viruses? Where have you
the circumstances arose where mail folders are kept
from a pre-clamav time, or there was an issue with the clamav setup at
the time, or clamav was not scanning incoming mail but was scanning
files, etc. can happen. happened to me. from looking at the mailing
list and the faq, it does happen.
See bottom of thread for thoughts
the circumstances arose where mail folders are kept
from a pre-clamav time, or there was an issue with the clamav setup at
the time, or clamav was not scanning incoming mail
I have to say that while I commend your sharing of a concept/idea, it
does appear
folks:
here is a tool to split up mailboxes (like those used by thunderbird)
and scan the mails individually. there is another similar tool using
perl in the archives, but this only uses bash commands, formail, and
clamscan.
here was the problem i had: running clamscan, the entire mailbox file
20 matches
Mail list logo
