Re: [sniffer] Sniffer and SmarterMail?
Sheldon, Saturday, June 4, 2005 you wrote: >>The SquirrelMail web interface is not bad although it is PHP 4. >>The web admin interface is pretty good, too, and can be php 5. SK> Does this really matter for us non programmers? It does actually. Just make sure to install the PHP 4 version that works with both SquirrelMail and the web admin interface if you intend to use either or both of them. SquirrelMail works with IMAP too so if it is on a different server then you have to enable IMAP. --- Terry Fritts This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
Re: [sniffer] Sniffer and SmarterMail?
Joe, Wednesday, June 1, 2005 you wrote: JW> If there's a better option than SmarterMail I'd love to hear it, JW> but I can't compare a $4000+ server to a $600 one. hMailServer is free and open source. Once I finish the script work for calling Sniffer and the work-around for ClamDscan and FPROT I'll post it. Clamdscan is the service (daemon) for ClamAV. No reason that the daemon version of Sniffer couldn't be used as well. The SquirrelMail web interface is not bad although it is PHP 4. The web admin interface is pretty good, too, and can be php 5. --- Terry Fritts This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
Re: [sniffer] Sniffer and SmarterMail?
> Looking at migrating to SmarterMail > MDaemon as an alternative I like the weighting that SmarterMail offers for spam checking and the web interface is undeniably nice. And there are many other really excellent features including the price which seems reasonable to me. I have not tested this directly but you should be able to use Sniffer with SmarterMail by employing the protocol settings for the command line exe or batch file and pointing to Sniffer. This is also how one would employ custom scripting. There is (at least I've seen a web page) a filter already available on the web for ClamAV and SpamAssassin that uses the hook. It would be pretty easy to use a batch file for Sniffer I think. Another possibility that might work for some is the open source hMailServer in the latest beta which has a scripting provision built in for 3 events: OnClientConnect, OnAcceptMessage, OnDeliverMessage. It is beta but I've been testing it with no apparent problems thus far. It comes with a provision for using ClamWin and an additional virus scanner. You can use Clamdscan with a little trickery. Also has a COM interface. http://www.hmailserver.com/ In order to employ Sniffer you have to use the Scripting provision of the beta and put your call to Sniffer in the OnDeliverMessage area. One drawback thus far is the inability to easily add additional x-headers but you can easily modify standard headers. Not promoting anything - but we've been testing a few things ourselves. --- Terry Fritts This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
Re: [sniffer] F-Prot and netsky
Mike, Tuesday, February 24, 2004 you wrote: MV> I was wondering if anyone else is using F-prot for their virus engine in MV> declude, and what they now think about it. Netsky was discovered on the MV> 18th, and F-Prot actually had it posted on their website as being discovered MV> by them on the 19th. But they didn't update their definition files to MV> actually catch it until early this morning. This meant that netsky ran MV> rampant under F-Prots nose for 6 days. I feel this is completely MV> unacceptable, and I am going to change my virus engine this week unless MV> someone can tell me that there is a good reason why I shouldn't. This is not our experience. Here's an excerpt form our virus reporter for the 18th. Scanner 1 is Fprot. Scanner 2 is NAI (McAfee). So on the 18th Fprot caught 39 it identified as Netsky. However, some of these were corrupted. All in all I'm happy with F-prot but I see enough difference to run 2 and might add a 3rd: > From: 02/18/2004 00:00:30 Thru 02/18/2004 23:59:36 > Log files: vir0218.log > > Scanner 1 Virus names > VBS/Haptime.F = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 4 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (corrupted) = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 5 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 39 > > Scanner 1 Days > 02/18/2004 = 52 > > Scanner 2 Virus names > VBS/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus = 4 > W32/Bugbear.b.dam virus = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus = 1 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus = 3 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus = 2 > W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED] virus = 14 > W32/Sober!data trojan = 3 > > Scanner 2 Days > 02/18/2004 = 30 Terry Fritts This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
