Hi all
I am new that use clamav on my server suse-smp.
I install clamav.0-65 , when I use this command :
/usr/local/sbin/clamav-milter -blo /var/run/clmilter.sock
it saya
You must select server type (local/TCP) in /usr/local/etc/clamav.conf
What must I do ?
-by regards
-- Sophia
-
Antony Stone wrote:
On Thursday 08 January 2004 12:21 pm, Payal Rathod wrote:
Hi all,
Recently I noticed that Norton AV clears more than 60,000 viruses,
maybe other virus scanners also have similar numbers, why do we have a
very less number?
2. Many vendors count minor variations in viruses as
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:53:41 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> per my max-space setting of 250, if i understand it correctly,
> messages up to 250K will be virusscanned. does that mean that larger
> messages simply get pushed through the processing unscanned? the
> reason i ask is because it seems
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:55:08 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> just noticed that in the documentation - under 'certified software' -
> there's mention of nclamd, with a URL of http://www.kyzo.com/nclamd .
> that url fails, and going to their main page, i couldn't find any link
> to nclamd.
Th
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:07:16 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> which is really weird. clamdscan took 3 seconds *longer*, butit also
> found three times as many viruses as clamscan (that's weird in itself,
> since all the messages in the quarantine were put there by clamscan!)
That's because clamd
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 12:07:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> hmm. while i am seeing a gigantic difference in 'real' scanning of incoming
> messages, here's what i get from scanning my existing quarantine dir
> between the two:
>
> with 880 files in the quarantine,
>
> clamdscan:
> -
>Known viruses: 29948
It is still under 2 virus signatures in the db.
I think there is a discussion from yesterday or
the day before on how too correct the reading of virusdb.
Tjenesten mail.adventuras.no ble levert av Adventu
At 02:07 PM 1/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmm. while i am seeing a gigantic difference in 'real' scanning of
incoming messages, here's what i get from scanning my existing quarantine
dir between the two:
with 880 files in the quarantine,
When scanning a large number of files all at once, mos
I used a Pentium 233MMX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] arquivos]# time /usr/local/bin/clamscan /etc/services
/etc/services: OK
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
Known viruses: 29951
Scanned directories: 0
Scanned files: 1
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 0.01 Mb
I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes
Time: 7.206 sec
I tried the test mentioned below and noticed my times were almost
identical. I found the cause of this to be that my clamdscan was
symlinked to clamscan so they were 1 and the same. Then i recalled a step
from the qmailrocks (www.qmailrocks.org) installation instructions that
says to rename clamd
At 11:53 AM 1/9/2004, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
A simple comparison (very rough, but shows the idea):
$ time clamscan /etc/services
/etc/services: OK
--- SCAN SUMMARY ---
[...]
Data scanned: 0.01 Mb
I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes
Time: 0.721 sec (0 m 0 s)
real0m0.726s
user0m0.68
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 at 13:38:54 -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
>
[...]
> Very generally expect 10x or so speed improvement using clamdscan rather
> than clamscan with an MTA, but results will vary widely. Your reported
> scan time improvement seems quite possible.
>
A simple comparison (very rough,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom Walsh
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Clamav-users] pretty basic question - clamscan vs
> clamdscan
>
>
> > The difference between up and down is that on
At 11:31 AM 1/9/2004, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
>thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
>clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
>taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
>seconds, .7 seconds, etc - wh
At 01:19 PM 1/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:09 AM 1/9/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch
from clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather
than taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they
>thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
>clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
>taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
>seconds, .7 seconds, etc - which doesn't seem possible.
Actually, tha
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> following up on my own message here - the name clamdscan implies a daemon
> unto itself, that's why it seems - odd - if clamdscan is to be invoked the
Ah. Therein lies your problem. clamdscan means "scan by sending to clamd" .
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 14:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> following up on my own message here - the name clamdscan implies a daemon
> unto itself, that's why it seems - odd - if clamdscan is to be invoked the
> same as clamscan. If clamdscan is to run persistently, i'd expect it to be
> started up
At 11:09 AM 1/9/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch
from clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather
than taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in
.1 seconds, .7 seconds, etc -
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:09:34AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
> clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
> taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
>
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from
> clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than
> taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1
> seconds, .7 seconds, etc
At 10:47 AM 1/9/2004, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 12:18, Jim Maul wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > i installed clamav via the instructions quite a long time ago.
> > i run it via
> > > qmail-scanner. clamd is running, and messages are scanned by
>
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 12:18, Jim Maul wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > i installed clamav via the instructions quite a long time ago.
> > i run it via
> > > qmail-scanner. clamd is running, and messages are scanned by
> > clamscan. so
> > > where does clamdscan come
> The difference between up and down is that one is up and one
> is down. Very profound, and not very helpful. Why bother
> answering if the answer in no way provides any explanation?
Why bother responding only to chide the response for its lack of content
with more banter with similarly lackin
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Christopher X. Candreva
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] pretty basic question - clamscan vs
> clamdscan
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTE
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i installed clamav via the instructions quite a long time ago. i run it via
> qmail-scanner. clamd is running, and messages are scanned by clamscan. so
> where does clamdscan come in?? there's very little mention of clamdscan in
Use clandscan instead
just noticed that in the documentation - under 'certified software' -
there's mention of nclamd, with a URL of http://www.kyzo.com/nclamd . that
url fails, and going to their main page, i couldn't find any link to nclamd.
Paul Theodoropoulos
http://www.anastrophe.com
-
per my max-space setting of 250, if i understand it correctly, messages up
to 250K will be virusscanned. does that mean that larger messages simply
get pushed through the processing unscanned? the reason i ask is because it
seems as if it doesn't matter what size the message is, it gets scanned
Okay, i apologize for such a basic question, but i guess i've been running
clamav 'blind' for some time now!
i installed clamav via the instructions quite a long time ago. i run it via
qmail-scanner. clamd is running, and messages are scanned by clamscan. so
where does clamdscan come in?? there
On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 08:58, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20040108 18:12]: wrote:
> > http://mikecathey.com/code/clamdwatch/
>
> How do I run the script?
>
Here's an install guide:
http://mikecathey.com/code/clamdwatch/INSTALL
I just started using this i
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:32:06 -0200
Wesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello..
> Sorry for my terrible english.
> I have a Linux server with Clam anti-virus with auto update and always
> I receive a e-mail with subject "clam update", but the body in blank.
> I want that e-mail show me the log abou
Hello..
Sorry for my terrible english.
I have a Linux server with Clam anti-virus with auto update and always I
receive a e-mail with subject "clam update", but the body in blank. I
want that e-mail show me the log about update (what is updated,..) I
know it's possible. Someone can help me??
We
On Friday 09 January 2004 9:09 am, Marino, Santiago Maximiliano wrote:
> I would like to know the name of all virus on the Clamav DataBase...
> Is it possible
Yes - simply look at the plain Ascii files /usr/local/share/clamav/viruses.db
and viruses.db2 (you can convert the newer .cvd format
I would like to know the name of all virus on the Clamav DataBase...
Is it possible
Thank you!
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branchi
34 matches
Mail list logo
