Re: Antivirus license
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:44, Leonardo Boselli wrote: I do not address the license problem, but rather the utility of a n antivirus for e-mail . Such beast hogs the server, and give a false sense of safety to user. I feel better 1. delegate to end user, i do not use AV , i nearly always use win, i receive about 500 messages per day, but never got a virus installed in my computer. I think that avoiding the 500 messages per day is a worthy benefit of a virus scanner. Dealing with spam is annoying enough, getting lots of virus messages too is unbearable. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antivirus license
On 12 Jun 2003 at 16:06, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:44, Leonardo Boselli wrote: I do not address the license problem, but rather the utility of a n antivirus for e-mail . Such beast hogs the server, and give a false sense of safety to user. I feel better 1. delegate to end user, i do not use AV , i nearly always use win, i receive about 500 messages per day, but never got a virus installed in my computer. I think that avoiding the 500 messages per day is a worthy benefit of a virus scanner. I think of 500 messages inclusive of legitimate ones, spam and viruses. of these 500 about 400 are legitimate ones that should be read, or at least archived, 90 are spam that is tagged by a light filter, so i can sweep away in one shot, and a few ones are viruses. Dealing with spam is annoying enough, getting lots of virus messages too is unbearable. Yes, but is enjoying to read the headers to know who is the dud that got the virus !!! -- Leonardo Boselli Nucleo Informatico e Telematico del Dipartimento Ingegneria Civile Universita` di Firenze , V. S. Marta 3 - I-50139 Firenze tel +39 0554796431 cell +39 3488605348 fax +39 055495333 http://www.dicea.unifi.it/~leo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antivirus license
I do not address the license problem, but rather the utility of a n antivirus for e-mail . Such beast hogs the server, and give a false sense of safety to user. I feel better 1. delegate to end user, i do not use AV , i nearly always use win, i receive about 500 messages per day, but never got a virus installed in my computer. 2. if you cannot trust completely your user use a resident antivirus on ws, at least this would hog their machine, not the server ! 3. if the virus is new option 2 could not work, but even the server one could fail, more difficult with option 1. provide a good debugger to your user. On 10 Jun 2003 at 9:43, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: Hi I want to put an antivirus on the mail server (BugBear helped me to convince my boss). Now is time for wondering about licenses. Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? -- Leonardo Boselli Nucleo Informatico e Telematico del Dipartimento Ingegneria Civile Universita` di Firenze , V. S. Marta 3 - I-50139 Firenze tel +39 0554796431 cell +39 3488605348 fax +39 055495333 http://www.dicea.unifi.it/~leo
Re: Antivirus license
On 12 Jun 2003 at 16:06, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:44, Leonardo Boselli wrote: I do not address the license problem, but rather the utility of a n antivirus for e-mail . Such beast hogs the server, and give a false sense of safety to user. I feel better 1. delegate to end user, i do not use AV , i nearly always use win, i receive about 500 messages per day, but never got a virus installed in my computer. I think that avoiding the 500 messages per day is a worthy benefit of a virus scanner. I think of 500 messages inclusive of legitimate ones, spam and viruses. of these 500 about 400 are legitimate ones that should be read, or at least archived, 90 are spam that is tagged by a light filter, so i can sweep away in one shot, and a few ones are viruses. Dealing with spam is annoying enough, getting lots of virus messages too is unbearable. Yes, but is enjoying to read the headers to know who is the dud that got the virus !!! -- Leonardo Boselli Nucleo Informatico e Telematico del Dipartimento Ingegneria Civile Universita` di Firenze , V. S. Marta 3 - I-50139 Firenze tel +39 0554796431 cell +39 3488605348 fax +39 055495333 http://www.dicea.unifi.it/~leo
Re: Antivirus license
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:43:36AM +0200, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: [omissis] Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? I think using those products behind AMaViS imply a non-personal use, since, usually, a mailserver serves many users. However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? We've running a Postfix (with its built-in UCE Controls) + AMaViSd-new and ClamAV system and it works pretty well. All of the packages are avaiable in Debian (amavisd-new and clamav are backports to woody. Just take a look on apt-get.org) and work nice. The updates are usually fast and the db seems to be quite up to date. I got a server unreachale error the last two days, perhaps due to the BugBear fever, but it does not happen so often. I think you should give ClamAV a chance and almost try it, and eventually migrate to (or simply add) other commercial products if you'll get unsatisfied. -- Samuele Catusian http://studenti.ing.unipi.it/~s244797/ -o) ,''`. /\ : :' : _\_V `. `' Debian GNU/Linux: when you have to do other`- important things than fixing a system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antivirus license
Brad Lay wrote: On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-1] Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: Hi I want to put an antivirus on the mail server (BugBear helped me to convince my boss). Now is time for wondering about licenses. Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? Openantivirus is outdated by clamav, and clamav is very stable on all 3 of my servers, bugbear was picked up by quickly enough for me. Definetly worth using IMHO. works with amavis (all MTA's), exiscan (exim3), and MIMEDEfang (sendmail milter), in my setups. I'm very pleased. I second that. We use amavisd-new with clamav on all our externally visible MX boxen. The software is rock stable, but clamav's database site is down from time to time. This is fixed in mainstream (different download server), eventually I'll put updated debs somewhere. I also filed a bug for that, hoping the pkgmnt will pick it up soon. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antivirus license
Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: I have a doubt respecting amavis... I've read there are some antiviruses that run in daemon mode (clamav-daemon, sophie) because if you want to check a lot of files every 2 or 3 seconds (like a mail server does), it takes a lot of resources to load virus definitions every time, so they load definitions once and stay as a daemon. But I thought AMaViS implemented this. Am I certain? Does AMaViS load virus definitions every time a mail is checked? I mean, is useless a daemon antivirus with amavis? It's a bit different. You're right in that clamav-daemon/sophie run as daemons to reduce pattern load time and system load. But it's also true that perl scripts (like amavis) also take a while to load (on my testing machine it takes even longer to load and initialize amavis than h+b antivir), so amavis has also been daemonized (in the various spin-offs, like amavisd, amavisd-snap, amavisd-new). So with amavisd-new (which I prefer to run) you have an MTA, conenctiong to the amavis daemon, which connects to (eg) the clamav-daemon. Everything sits in memory and is ready to rumple upon incoming mail :-) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antivirus license
Amavis knows nothing about virus signatures. It only knows how to query some av softwares being them daemons or a command line based. Tomàs Núñez Lirola (by way of Tomàs Núñez Lirola ) ha scritto: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have a doubt respecting amavis... I've read there are some antiviruses that run in daemon mode (clamav-daemon, sophie) because if you want to check a lot of files every 2 or 3 seconds (like a mail server does), it takes a lot of resources to load virus definitions every time, so they load definitions once and stay as a daemon. But I thought AMaViS implemented this. Am I certain? Does AMaViS load virus definitions every time a mail is checked? I mean, is useless a daemon antivirus with amavis? El Martes, 10 de Junio de 2003 10:38, Samuele Catusian escribió: -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Antivirus license
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-1] Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: Hi I want to put an antivirus on the mail server (BugBear helped me to convince my boss). Now is time for wondering about licenses. Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? Openantivirus is outdated by clamav, and clamav is very stable on all 3 of my servers, bugbear was picked up by quickly enough for me. Definetly worth using IMHO. works with amavis (all MTA's), exiscan (exim3), and MIMEDEfang (sendmail milter), in my setups. I'm very pleased. Regards, Brad Lay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) W) http://coombabah.net/
Re: Antivirus license
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:43:36AM +0200, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: Hi I want to put an antivirus on the mail server (BugBear helped me to convince my boss). Now is time for wondering about licenses. Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? We use Amavis + McAfee uvscan. I downloaded uvscan from McAfee website (the Linux / personal version). A few days later, a rep called me, to get feedback about my product evaluation. Him: Are you satisfied with the product ? Me: Yes, it works fairly well. Him: Do you plan to buy it for your organisation ? Me: Yes, sure ! Him: On how many systems do you plan to install the software. Me: Hmm... One ! Him: Then it's just for your personal use ? Me: No, it's for the mail serer. But we have just one (!) Him: Hmmm... I think we have a problem, we sell this product with a minimum 5 license pack. Me: One would be enough, I believe. Him: Then you should continue to use the free version you downloaded. I understand you don't want to buy a five-pack for just one machine. Me: But I believe it's not possible according to the software license. Him: If you think so, then you have to buy the five-pack. Me: Let's go for it. Note: the five pack was something like 100-200 Euros, I don't remember. Not very expensive anyway. uvscan gets an update every few days. -- Nicolas Bougues Axialys Interactive
Re: Antivirus license
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:43:36AM +0200, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: [omissis] Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? I think using those products behind AMaViS imply a non-personal use, since, usually, a mailserver serves many users. However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? We've running a Postfix (with its built-in UCE Controls) + AMaViSd-new and ClamAV system and it works pretty well. All of the packages are avaiable in Debian (amavisd-new and clamav are backports to woody. Just take a look on apt-get.org) and work nice. The updates are usually fast and the db seems to be quite up to date. I got a server unreachale error the last two days, perhaps due to the BugBear fever, but it does not happen so often. I think you should give ClamAV a chance and almost try it, and eventually migrate to (or simply add) other commercial products if you'll get unsatisfied. -- Samuele Catusian http://studenti.ing.unipi.it/~s244797/ -o) ,''`. /\ : :' : _\_V `. `' Debian GNU/Linux: when you have to do other`- important things than fixing a system.
Re: Antivirus license
Brad Lay wrote: On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-1] Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: Hi I want to put an antivirus on the mail server (BugBear helped me to convince my boss). Now is time for wondering about licenses. Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? Openantivirus is outdated by clamav, and clamav is very stable on all 3 of my servers, bugbear was picked up by quickly enough for me. Definetly worth using IMHO. works with amavis (all MTA's), exiscan (exim3), and MIMEDEfang (sendmail milter), in my setups. I'm very pleased. I second that. We use amavisd-new with clamav on all our externally visible MX boxen. The software is rock stable, but clamav's database site is down from time to time. This is fixed in mainstream (different download server), eventually I'll put updated debs somewhere. I also filed a bug for that, hoping the pkgmnt will pick it up soon. Thomas
Re: Antivirus license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have a doubt respecting amavis... I've read there are some antiviruses that run in daemon mode (clamav-daemon, sophie) because if you want to check a lot of files every 2 or 3 seconds (like a mail server does), it takes a lot of resources to load virus definitions every time, so they load definitions once and stay as a daemon. But I thought AMaViS implemented this. Am I certain? Does AMaViS load virus definitions every time a mail is checked? I mean, is useless a daemon antivirus with amavis? El Martes, 10 de Junio de 2003 10:38, Samuele Catusian escribió: On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:43:36AM +0200, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: [omissis] Kaspersky and F-Prot (two examples) have a product for a mail server. If I use their product for a personal use (wich license price is a 5% of the mail server license) with amavis, am I doing something illegal? Does the license permit its use with amavis? I need to know it for sure... so can anyone help me? I think using those products behind AMaViS imply a non-personal use, since, usually, a mailserver serves many users. However, the open alternatives (clamav, openantivirus, etc) are stable enough? They get updated fast enough? We've running a Postfix (with its built-in UCE Controls) + AMaViSd-new and ClamAV system and it works pretty well. All of the packages are avaiable in Debian (amavisd-new and clamav are backports to woody. Just take a look on apt-get.org) and work nice. The updates are usually fast and the db seems to be quite up to date. I got a server unreachale error the last two days, perhaps due to the BugBear fever, but it does not happen so often. I think you should give ClamAV a chance and almost try it, and eventually migrate to (or simply add) other commercial products if you'll get unsatisfied. -- Samuele Catusian http://studenti.ing.unipi.it/~s244797/ -o) ,''`. /\ : :' : _\_V `. `' Debian GNU/Linux: when you have to do other`- important things than fixing a system. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+5awuiQmYUmmD5jgRAjpeAJ0ch5zbSGePyPyCz/hgE6kfRakkuwCfUWqV SRn99QqzoYQzP9XKa215Gts= =aD6u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Antivirus license
Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote: I have a doubt respecting amavis... I've read there are some antiviruses that run in daemon mode (clamav-daemon, sophie) because if you want to check a lot of files every 2 or 3 seconds (like a mail server does), it takes a lot of resources to load virus definitions every time, so they load definitions once and stay as a daemon. But I thought AMaViS implemented this. Am I certain? Does AMaViS load virus definitions every time a mail is checked? I mean, is useless a daemon antivirus with amavis? It's a bit different. You're right in that clamav-daemon/sophie run as daemons to reduce pattern load time and system load. But it's also true that perl scripts (like amavis) also take a while to load (on my testing machine it takes even longer to load and initialize amavis than h+b antivir), so amavis has also been daemonized (in the various spin-offs, like amavisd, amavisd-snap, amavisd-new). So with amavisd-new (which I prefer to run) you have an MTA, conenctiong to the amavis daemon, which connects to (eg) the clamav-daemon. Everything sits in memory and is ready to rumple upon incoming mail :-) Thomas
Re: Antivirus license
Amavis knows nothing about virus signatures. It only knows how to query some av softwares being them daemons or a command line based. Tomàs Núñez Lirola (by way of Tomàs Núñez Lirola ) ha scritto: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have a doubt respecting amavis... I've read there are some antiviruses that run in daemon mode (clamav-daemon, sophie) because if you want to check a lot of files every 2 or 3 seconds (like a mail server does), it takes a lot of resources to load virus definitions every time, so they load definitions once and stay as a daemon. But I thought AMaViS implemented this. Am I certain? Does AMaViS load virus definitions every time a mail is checked? I mean, is useless a daemon antivirus with amavis? El Martes, 10 de Junio de 2003 10:38, Samuele Catusian escribió:
