Hi,
I'm working on an http anti virus scanner. The main goal are continuous and
non-blocking downloads.
Therefore I need libclamav to start scanning even with a small amount of
received data.
I figured out that changing SCANBUFF will work for me. Is there a
disadvantage decreasing this buffer to
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:36:44 +0100
Christian Hilgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on an http anti virus scanner. The main goal are
continuous and non-blocking downloads.
Therefore I need libclamav to start scanning even with a small amount
of received data.
I figured out that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/22/2005
08:05:51:
Please do not use cl_scanbuff at all, it's to be removed in 0.90.
This
function only supports old type signature scanning and will miss many
viruses (just try to scan test/clam.exe). You should definitely use
cl_scanfile/cl_scandesc instead.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:30:37 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
disadvantage decreasing this buffer to 25000? I guess it is only a
performance and not a safety issue.
[...]
I don't use the scanbuff funktion. I'm using cl_scandesc. I think I
have to explain thefunctionality of my
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:53:01 +0100
Oden Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't even work if I set the TEMP env var to point
to /var/lib/clamav/tmp.
libclamav uses TMPDIR and not TEMP
--
oo. Tomasz Kojm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(\/)\.
tisdag 22 februari 2005 14.06 skrev Tomasz Kojm:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:53:01 +0100
Oden Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't even work if I set the TEMP env var to point
to /var/lib/clamav/tmp.
libclamav uses TMPDIR and not TEMP
Ahh, of course. Maybe I shouldn't have booted
