On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 01:31:22 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian Mehnle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If people require machines as desperately as that to prevent
themselves from falling for fraud attempts, humanity is truly doomed.
It always has been. Never mind the quality, feel the *width*.
--
Hi,
Versions:
Clam 0.80
Clamassassin 1.2.1
I have installed ClamAssassin with Sendmail.
Is there any way by which we can come to know if the virus was found in body
of the message or in attachment ?
I ask this because, if the virus is in attachment, we need to just delete
the attachment and
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Trog wrote:
Please give a full definition of Spam and Malware/Viruses that do not
intersect, and will never intersect for all future Spam and Malware
such that we can be sure we know what you are requesting.
After reading the 100+ messages in this thread, I've gotta say I'm
A symlink enables freshclam to start but I get an error message in the log
saying that functionality is level 1 and level 3 is required.
Paul Dobson
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
No sorry it doesn't. I know how to install clamav - I've been running it
since 0.67.
Paul
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:57:33 + in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul Dobson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A symlink enables freshclam to start but I get an error message in the
log saying that functionality is level 1 and level 3 is required.
Looks like you have an old version of libclamav in your LD_PATH
ClamAV users ML [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks like you have an old version of libclamav in your LD_PATH or else
you are running an old version of freshclam.
I'd suggest very carefully checking your installation and finding and
clearing out the old stuff.
I would guess that the version I have
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:01:07 + in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul Dobson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ClamAV users ML [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks like you have an old version of libclamav in your LD_PATH or
else you are running an old version of freshclam.
I'd suggest very carefully checking
ClamAV users ML [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The symptom you describe sounds like there is an old library somewhere
else, but I forget when functionality level 2 was brought in, it might
have been between 0.70 and 0.75, so whatever you had was older than this
breakpoint. I'd say there is still a
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:29:29 + in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul Dobson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess the thing to do is to uninstall 0.80 and look around for
files that are left.
Yes, that would work, you might just try a comprehensive search before
you do something quite that drastic.
--
Hi
I just upgraded from Clam 0.75 to Clam 0.80. Ownerships seem OK. I could
not see anywhere that required major config changes. Everything works
perfectly with 0.75. The freshclam update worked well. On startup, the
clamd.log seems fine.
Were there any major config changes that are
A search solved the problem. I had forgotten that as part of the original
install the instructions had been to copy clamscan and freshclam to
/usr/bin! Now removed and working ok.
Paul
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 at 1:31:22 +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
If people require machines as desperately as that to prevent themselves
from falling for fraud attempts, humanity is truly doomed.
It already is ;-) .
Anybody who doubts it can have a look:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:32:19 + in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul Dobson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A search solved the problem. I had forgotten that as part of the
original install the instructions had been to copy clamscan and
freshclam to/usr/bin! Now removed and working ok.
Good! Pleased it's
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Julian Mehnle wrote:
If people require machines as desperately as that to prevent themselves
from falling for fraud attempts...
...then they're pretty much behaving in the manner humanity always has and
always will.
To those of you who argue that ClamAV should detect
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:38:05 -0500 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Frank DeChellis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I just upgraded from Clam 0.75 to Clam 0.80. Ownerships seem OK. I
could not see anywhere that required major config changes. Everything
works perfectly with 0.75. The freshclam update
Title: Good job ClamAV team!
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 multiple lines of
I would like to second your thoughts on this matter. All to often we users tend to take this software and all the work behind it for granted. The vast majority of posts on this lists are problems with this or that, or why didn't you do it this way or that way. I'd like to just join in and say to
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 Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Announcingple require machines as desperately as that to prevent themselves
from falling for fraud attempts...
...then they're pretty much behaving in the manner humanity always has and
always will.
To those of you who argue that ClamAV should
Here Here ...
An excellent product and a huge thanks to ALL who have contributed to it !
--
Ken Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
On 2004-11-15 16:23:19 -0500, 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 as an attachment
Peter J. Holzer wrote:
Otherwise, if it is HTML, filter it through w3m, lynx, or some other
html to text converter.
This is the dangerous part. If there's going to be any way for a malignant
HTML email to overflow a buffer, it's here.
___
Peter J. Holzer wrote:
I was under the impression that MIMEDefang can do this. But I'm
afraid my users wouldn't like it, so I never looked into it closely.
That said I think this is very easy to implement:
Check if a mime entity is multipart/alternative with a text part: If
it is, replace it with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter J. Holzer wrote:
Otherwise, if it is HTML, filter it through w3m, lynx, or some other
html to text converter.
This is the dangerous part. If there's going to be any way for a malignant
HTML email to overflow a buffer, it's here.
Well it's always about
25 matches
Mail list logo
