Is the new qmail-queue setuid?
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 03:15 PM, Christian Ista wrote:
Hello,
I have a server (Redhat 7.1).
I installed that :
- clamav
- Qmail-queue
- Qmail-scanner
- some perl module
All these elements are compiled and installed, I didn't have any
problem.
When I
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 16:40, Diego d'Ambra wrote:
>
> The current standpoint of the team maintaining the DB is to include
> signatures that also detect damaged viruses. These signatures are often
> used to detect e-mails that somehow "lost" the damaging part. This is to
> prevent users from getti
> -Original Message-
> From: Antony Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20. september 2003 21:31
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru
>
> On Saturday 20 September 2003 6:39 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>
> > I would prefer that clamav be
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20. september 2003 20:13
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] RE: UPDATE81.exe getting thru
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 12:39:33PM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> >
> > Thus, I would prefer that cl
Christian Ista wrote:
This looks like a qmail problem - does the delivery Maildir directory
exist? Is it structured properly?
Yes, I didn't remove any folders.
But I really don't know where search. It's may be a right access on a
directory byt wich one ?
Check the qmail docs about setting up use
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:54, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Friday 19 September 2003 3:47 pm, Bennett Todd wrote:
>
> > 2003-09-19T10:07:54 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > > NOTE: This is no longer the suggested method for submitting virus
> > > samples. Please visit http://clamav.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/sendvir
> This looks like a qmail problem - does the delivery Maildir directory
> exist? Is it structured properly?
Yes, I didn't remove any folders.
But I really don't know where search. It's may be a right access on a
directory byt wich one ?
Thanks,
-
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is solved in a newer development version, so these
instructions are mostly for those like me trying to figure out how to get
this compile to work.
First, upgrade to the latest compiler, etc, using the Cygwin installer.
For reference, I used cygwin 1.5.4-1, gcc 3.2-3, mak
Christian Ista wrote:
When I send e mail, I see it in :
/var/log/qmail/current (see below)
But the mail not arrive, could you help me to trace the mail.
0/20 @40003f6c6a5803d934e4 delivery 1: deferral:
Unable_to_chdir_to_maildir._(#4.2.1)/
This looks like a qmail problem - does the delivery
On Saturday 20 September 2003 6:39 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> I would prefer that clamav be able to determine if it appears to
> be a virus, even one damaged to the point of non-existance.
Detecting something which doesn't exist sounds tricky to me.
Antony.
--
I vote "no" to this proposal
Hello,
I have a server (Redhat 7.1).
I installed that :
- clamav
- Qmail-queue
- Qmail-scanner
- some perl module
All these elements are compiled and installed, I didn't have any
problem.
When I send e mail, I see it in :
/var/log/qmail/current (see below)
But the mail not arrive, could you h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 19 Sep 2003 6:41 am, Tommi Rintala wrote:
> There is one entry like this (mail.log):
>
> Sep 18 04:17:10 mega clamav-milter[14321]: Expected port information from
> clamd, got 'Session(1): Time out ERROR '
> Sep 18 04:17:10 mega sm-mta[14312
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 12:39:33PM -0500, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>
> Thus, I would prefer that clamav be able to determine if it appears to
> be a virus, even one damaged to the point of non-existance.
maybe someone could post a signature for the gif here and those who
wish to block it can add
> > NB:
> > * my server runs Exim 4.22 on FreeBSD 4.6, with exiscan-acl and clamd
> > * OK means that the virus file has been identified by ClamAV
> > * FAILED means that the virus file got though without being detected
>
> Some of the tests failed because a detection for them must be implemented
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 12:16, Thomas Lamy wrote:
> Antony Stone wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:54 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 10:40, Antony Stone wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>A gif is not a virus, so it should not be detected by an anti-virus
> >>>program.
>
We host e-mail for schools, business's, etc. It's not feasible to
enforce blocking .exe's and keep customers. Simple economics.
Support costs are an issue and it's a small trade off in this incident
to go blocking the gif route.
Dee
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 09:16, Thomas Lamy wrote:
> Antony Stone
Antony Stone wrote:
On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:54 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 10:40, Antony Stone wrote:
A gif is not a virus, so it should not be detected by an anti-virus
program.
Anyway, what's the point? Why bother blocking a 'damaged' copy of a
virus, where 'd
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is solved in a newer development
version, so these instructions are mostly for those
like me trying to figure out how to get this compile
to work.
First, upgrade to the latest compiler, etc, using the
Cygwin installer. For reference, I used cygwin
1.5.4-1, gcc 3.2-3, mak
On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:54 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 10:40, Antony Stone wrote:
> > A gif is not a virus, so it should not be detected by an anti-virus
> > program.
> >
> > Anyway, what's the point? Why bother blocking a 'damaged' copy of a
> > virus, where 'd
Does anyone have a working procmail filter for ripping the offending
virus out then sending the original message?
I tried trashscan and had several problems with it. Particularly it
was reassembling a message and pretty much destroying the 'From:'
header.
My current filter is blocking the off
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 10:40, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:04 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:47, Diego d'Ambra wrote:
> > > > -Original Message-
> > >
> > > Since the binary is completely missing it's difficult to create a
> > > signatur
On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:04 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:47, Diego d'Ambra wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> >
> > Since the binary is completely missing it's difficult to create a
> > signature that will catch the "damaged" versions of Gibe.F.
>
> You cou
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:47, Diego d'Ambra wrote:
> > -Original Message-
>
> Since the binary is completely missing it's difficult to create a
> signature that will catch the "damaged" versions of Gibe.F.
>
You could probably match on the gif file that is included - I've got the
same 4.9
Hi,
I've read a few reports the last week about people on *BSD who are
having stability problems with clamd (crashes for no reason), and I am
one of them with OpenBSD.
A few people started to create solutions to restart clamd as soon as
possible when clamd crashes, but that is off course not a
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 23:59, Antony Stone wrote:
> Try clamscan --help
>
I already did (after your previous post) and it is there, I just think
it should be added to the man page as well, that is what man pages are
for after all.
BMRB International
http://www.bmrb.co.uk
+44 (0)20 8566 5000
_
25 matches
Mail list logo
