On Wednesday, August 11, 2004 6:29 PM [EDT], Matthew Thomas wrote:
I was wondering how many clamav users came across this article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1633536,00.asp
The author says, among other things: Clearly the biggest need
these days in an anti-virus system is for
* Scott Call [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20040812 01:55]: wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote:
I was wondering how many clamav users came across this article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1633536,00.asp
The author says, among other things: Clearly the biggest need these days
So does that mean you no longer use Exiscan's demime facility, because,
if I understand this correctly, it is sufficient to pass the mime parts
to clamd for scanning. Using it and ScanMail would appear to bring some
competition between Exiscan's demime and ClamAV's ScanMail.
Could someone
Eric Becker wrote:
Although, he does bring up a good point about the ScanMail option
still not being officially supported. While I haven't had any
problems with the feature on my work's server, it certainly does raise
problems with some network admins.
ScanMail is not the only way to scan
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
So does that mean you no longer use Exiscan's demime facility, because,
if I understand this correctly, it is sufficient to pass the mime parts
to clamd for scanning. Using it and ScanMail would appear to bring some
competition between Exiscan's
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:41:50 +0200
Damjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know what does CGPav use? Clamav ScanMail
option or some internal
mail demime-fier?
cgpav is capable to rip attachments by itself. You can
safely turn off ScanMail with cgpav.
Regards,
Fajar
Although, he does bring up a good point about the ScanMail option
still not being officially supported. While I haven't had any
problems with the feature on my work's server, it certainly does raise
problems with some network admins.
ScanMail should be safe in the CVS/daily snapshot
On Thursday, August 12, 2004, at 07:41 AM, Damjan wrote:
Although, he does bring up a good point about the ScanMail option
still not being officially supported. While I haven't had any
problems with the feature on my work's server, it certainly does
raise
problems with some network admins.
I was wondering how many clamav users came across this article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1633536,00.asp
The author says, among other things: Clearly the biggest need these days in
an anti-virus system is for scanning e-mail, and here's where ClamAntiVirus
scares me. According to the
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote:
I was wondering how many clamav users came across this article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1633536,00.asp
The author says, among other things: Clearly the biggest need these days in
an anti-virus system is for scanning e-mail, and here's where
I actually emailed the author this stating that I thought it was an interesting read. He stated that there werent any numbers showing the response time when a new virus comes out. I shared with him my experience of the new Bagle variant outbreak. I had received updates from
I haven't had any stability problems myself and was just wondering if
users perceive clamav to be as experimental as the author suggests. I
know we haven't reached a 1.0 version, yet, but it's all been good for
me so far.
Upto just, I personally have had no problems with any of the
Matthew Thomas wrote:
I haven't had any stability problems myself and was just wondering if users
perceive clamav to be as experimental as the author suggests. I know we
haven't reached a 1.0 version, yet, but it's all been good for me so far.
There's still some rough edges to ClamAV, but it is
13 matches
Mail list logo
