>> 4.05 ...is crashing on a frequent basis (several times a day)...
> 4.07 is doing the same thing :-/
> On to 4.08, I suppose.
experienced similar issues but found they were related to clamd
"crashing" due to invalid signatures (I'm using some extra ones)
the crash then apparently had the b
Hi,
Since the last couple of releases ASSP is absolutely rock solid
(running 2.0-4.0.7 / 64Bit OS), the only problems i had was indeed
with ClamAv also and invalid signatures.
As GrayHat says try running ClamD with the standard signatures, or
even try to run it without ClamAV!
Just my 2 cen
> I run ASSP without any ClamAV and any additional viruscheck. With
> 15 messages/day there was only 1 virus coming through per 3 days.
My ClamAV does not have the total volume as yours, but ClamAV found 21
viruses in about 195000 messages, which is an order of magnitude more
viruses tha
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>even try to run it without ClamAV
I run ASSP without any ClamAV and any additional viruscheck. With
15 messages/day there was only 1 virus coming through per 3 days.
--
Let
On 9/2/2009 7:54 AM, Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
>> even try to run it without ClamAV
> I run ASSP without any ClamAV and any additional viruscheck. With
> 15 messages/day there was only 1 virus coming through per 3 days.
I'm curious...
Was it in the form of a file attachment that would be block
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>Was it in the form of a file attachment that would be blocked by
>simply
>blocking any/all 'executable' file types?
No, I do not block any attachment.
--
Let Crystal Reports han
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>
>Was it a file attachment? If so, what type was the attachment? Or was
>it
>a link to an infected website/URL?
I do not remember. But no, I do not think it was an attachment.
--
On 9/2/2009, Fritz Borgstedt (f...@iworld.de) wrote:
>> Was it in the form of a file attachment that would be blocked by
>> simply blocking any/all 'executable' file types?
> No, I do not block any attachment.
Thats not what I asked... I asked what form it was in...
Was it a file attachment? If
I see that too now, AND on the actual download page you've got the subject
and date too. PERFECT. Thank you. That'll really help.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
> ASSP development mailing list
> schreibt:
> >Hi Fritz-
> >What Trevor is saying is also what I am seei
ASSP development mailing list
schreibt:
>
>My ClamAV does not have the total volume as yours, but ClamAV found
>21
>viruses in about 195000 messages, which is an order of magnitude more
>
>viruses than yours, but still not a huge number.
What percentage of that was found by the extra signatur
>> a link to an infected website/URL
Would ClamAV even detect that? Surely that's a URIBL issue..
Steve
On 02/09/2009 17:24, "Fritz Borgstedt" wrote:
> ASSP development mailing list
> schreibt:
>>
>> Was it a file attachment? If so, what type was the attachment? Or was
>> it
>> a link to an
>> My ClamAV does not have the total volume as yours, but ClamAV found
>> 21 viruses in about 195000 message
> What percentage of that was found by the extra signatures?
Not sure. Is there a way to determine this from assp stats?
T.
-
Hello, Trevor!
Have you tried to cleanup (backup it before any operations) all spamdb, white,
black and other lists, and restart ASSP, and force to rebuild spamdb?
Strange errors may occur if any list contain some damages in their structure.
I use RC 0.4.05 for a couple days and didn't notice an
> I run ASSP without any ClamAV and any additional viruscheck.
> With 15 messages/day there was only 1 virus coming
> through per 3 days.
not willing to criticize or whatever... but I'm curious to know how
many "false NEGATIVES" you have; see, I too have been running
ASSP for quite a while w/o
GrayHat schreibt:
>not willing to criticize or whatever... but I'm curious to know how
>many "false NEGATIVES" you have;
According to my reporting stats, there are less than 5 per day, all
bayesian and scoring "spam founds" are just flagged, not blocked.
But ok, I am running assp for quite so
> so if you set filters too strict you hit the f/p zone, if you set
> them too loose you risk getting viruses...
I have found these settings to provide a good balance:
baysProbability 0.6
baysConf 0.0015
baysConfidenceHalfScore off
It sends me about one bad e-mail each side of the knife-edge
Hi all,
fixed:
- the 'edit' buttons are not working in 4.08
changed:
It is now possible to select different language files (in language folder)
for every Admin-User. 'root' is not changed - if assp.lng exists, this
file will be used for root.
Thomas
DISCLAIMER:
>> With 15 messages/day there was only 1 virus coming through per
>> 3 days.
> 21 viruses in about 195000 messages. ...I have noticed a fair spike
> in the number of phishing and viruses in the past month, though.
Another thing I've noticed is that the HUGE spike since March of SMTP
conn
18 matches
Mail list logo
