Re: [clamav-users] feedback on Installing ClamAV instructions

Joel Esler wrote: > This is fantastic feedback. > I’ve incorporated the fixes (and missing pages!) you’ve suggested below. Thanks, it's much better now! I'll use PRs for the rest. I might come back this week with actual problems/bugs, now that I can claim to have read the instructions and not

Re: [clamav-users] bugzilla security certificate

ClamAV is not the only project we run. When you all (or we) discover an issue, I take that information, file a ticket with our operations team, and the issues are resolved as we get to them, just like any other infrastructure. Not only do we run ClamAV, but we run Snort, and entire Talos

Re: [clamav-users] bugzilla security certificate

Reindl Harald wrote: > don't matter - instead of writing a mail that should have been just fixed I'm pretty sure the author was "filing a bug report" and not in a position to fix it... I'd hope that user MLs would not be particularly hostile to users reporting things that need to be fixed... >

Re: [clamav-users] bugzilla security certificate

Am 12.12.2016 um 00:25 schrieb timeless: Firefox reports: "bugs.clamav.net uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for bugzilla.clamav.net Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN" You can bypass the warning if desired. (FWIW, Chrome also allows this) Benny

Re: [clamav-users] bugzilla security certificate

> Firefox reports: >> "bugs.clamav.net uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is >> only valid for bugzilla.clamav.net Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN" >> You can bypass the warning if desired. (FWIW, Chrome also allows this) Benny Pedersen wrote: > worst advise you ever

Re: [clamav-users] Qusestion abotu Cloud base Scanning

Reindl Harald wrote: > see attachment - a simple file-upload piping a eml-file through 2 different > clamd-instances (different signatures and spamassassin-scorings) and finally > also to spamd to verify rule/score changes of previously received mails If you included an