Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
The ClamAV
vendor can offer a push of the AV patterns to paying customers with
special needs. That way you will receive the updates as quickly as do the
mirrors and the vendor recovers some of the cost of maintaining ClamAV.
Eh? Really? This is
-20040825-015000-01559-08, Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Hits: -
I don't always get the above errors but on the majority of incoming
emails I do see this. When I start amavis it seems to detect clamd as
primary and clamscan as secondary without any problems. Thanks for your
time,
Kind regards
PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED],
quarantine: virus-20040825-015000-01559-08, Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Hits: -
This looks like a problem with Amavis. Either drop it and go to a 100% ClamAV
solution for virus checking or ask on their list.
Kind regards,
Elvar
-Nigel
--
Nigel Horne
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 17:54, Matt wrote:
Dale Anderson wrote:
I have been having segment faults with clamd. I think
I am finding it happens on zip archives. I have sent a
few test virus zip files to the system each of them
causing a segment fault. Can someone help me out?
A
Hello All
I use an Debian-Linux Box here at work for 6 month now
For Email server.
No problem with Calmav until yesterday...
It seems our WebMaster want to send part of a new web site
To someone...
I got an Oversized zip alert.
One file on the zip is quite amazing...
A BMP picture file of 115254
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Dennis Peterson wrote:
; Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
; Dennis Peterson wrote:
;
; The ClamAV
; vendor can offer a push of the AV patterns to paying customers with
; special needs. That way you will receive the updates as quickly as do the
; mirrors and the vendor
Thierry Jaboeuf wrote the following on 08/25/2004 12:17 PM :
Hello All
I use an Debian-Linux Box here at work for 6 month now
For Email server.
No problem with Calmav until yesterday...
It seems our WebMaster want to send part of a new web site
To someone...
I got an Oversized zip alert.
One file
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trog wrote:
Which version of libz are you using? Anything other than 1.1.4 is liable
to crash or have security problems.
Just to be clear -- you are saying the latest verion 1.2.1 has problems ?
Is this documented any place ?
Quoting Thierry Jaboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello All
I use an Debian-Linux Box here at work for 6 month now
For Email server.
No problem with Calmav until yesterday...
It seems our WebMaster want to send part of a new web site
To someone...
I got an Oversized zip alert.
One file on the zip is
On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:39 PM, Ajay wrote:
Hi,
What are some other ways to get clamd support in postfix without using
amavisd-new because I don't need all the features of amavisd-new.
My setup is really basic where everyone has a shell account so in
order for everyone to have their own bayes
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 12:34, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trog wrote:
Which version of libz are you using? Anything other than 1.1.4 is liable
to crash or have security problems.
Just to be clear -- you are saying the latest verion 1.2.1 has problems ?
Yes, that
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Dennis Peterson wrote:
; The ClamAV
; vendor can offer a push of the AV patterns to paying customers with
; special needs. That way you will receive the updates as quickly as do the
; mirrors and the vendor recovers some of the cost of maintaining
Or, how about a subscription only (i.e. pay for) mirror which people can
query every five minutes if they like ?
This has the advantage that users who require this don't have to do anything
special (like set up an rsync server), just change the mirror they use and
the interval that freshclam
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:39:20PM -0700, Ajay wrote:
Hi,
What are some other ways to get clamd support in postfix without using
amavisd-new because I don't need all the features of amavisd-new.
Hi. Try my script, it's simple.
My setup is really basic where everyone has a shell
), [68.48.53.163]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED],
quarantine: virus-20040825-015000-01559-08, Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Hits: -
I don't always get the above errors but on the majority of incoming
emails I do see this. When I start amavis it seems to detect clamd as
primary
My setup is really basic where everyone has a shell account so in order
for everyone to have their own bayes databases, I need to run
spamassassin outside of amavisd-new. If there aren't any decent
alternative then I'll just run amavisd-new without the spamassassin
settings.
This is how we
On Wednesday 25 Aug 2004 12:09, Andy Fiddaman wrote:
I'd be interested in running one of these if the database team would be
willing to push updates out to a private mirror. (A percentage of the
revenue generated would then be fed back into the ClamAV project!)
Any reason why that percentage
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:38:53PM +0200, Lionel Bouton wrote:
Alex V. Kovirshin wrote the following on 08/25/2004 02:50 PM :
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:39:20PM -0700, Ajay wrote:
Hi,
What are some other ways to get clamd support in postfix without using
amavisd-new because I don't
Any reason why that percentage should be less than 100?
Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
purchase/access system?
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic
What are some other ways to get clamd support in postfix without using
amavisd-new because I don't need all the features of amavisd-new.
Google for clamassassin. Called from procmail, then procmail the results to
wherever you want. Works with clamscan or clamdscan. - John
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nigel Horne wrote:
| This is a known problem with zlib, not clamd. Please (a) ensure
| you have an older version (1.1.4 I think, but someone else will
| correct me no doubt) and (b) hassle the author of zlib to fix his/her
| code.
I took a quick look
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
; Any reason why that percentage should be less than 100?
;
; Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
; purchase/access system?
That about covers it. To be worth anything, the mirror farm would have to
be able to support
Julio Canto wrote:
Or, how about a subscription only (i.e. pay for) mirror which people can
query every five minutes if they like ?
This has the advantage that users who require this don't have to do
anything
special (like set up an rsync server), just change the mirror they use
and
the
Or, how about a subscription only (i.e. pay for) mirror which people can
query every five minutes if they like ?
Note that although you shouldn't, you CAN query any official mirror every
minute if you want :)
No mirror that I know of is able to prevent that. Yet.
iptables/netfilter :-)
So I
Any reason why that percentage should be less than 100?
Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
purchase/access system?
Welcome to the area of open source...
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by
Shayne Lebrun wrote:
Any reason why that percentage should be less than 100?
Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
purchase/access system?
And liability insurance.
dp
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by
Nigel Horne wrote:
On Wednesday 25 Aug 2004 12:09, Andy Fiddaman wrote:
I'd be interested in running one of these if the database team would be
willing to push updates out to a private mirror. (A percentage of the
revenue generated would then be fed back into the ClamAV project!)
Any reason why
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Shayne Lebrun wrote:
Any reason why that percentage should be less than 100?
Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
purchase/access system?
And liability insurance.
Hmm ...
which makes me wonder.
Say ...
1) I host an official public mirror,
Any reason why that percentage should be less than 100?
Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
purchase/access system?
Welcome to the area of open source...
Open source is all well and good, but bandwidth still costs.
Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
purchase/access system?
And liability insurance.
Aye, good point. Especially if you're going to be hoping to sell to
corporate clients.
---
SF.Net email is
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tim Howell wrote:
Someone recently suggested the idea of allowing sites with less than the
mirror site requirements becoming second-tier mirrors. This thread is
an attempt to see what kind of interest there is in such an
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
4) I setup atomated firewall system which automagically blocks
non-paying users which connects to my server too often (perhaps in less
30 minutes interval).
(4) might be a problem, since it might violate some requirements of
becoming a public
Someone recently suggested the idea of allowing sites with
less than the
mirror site requirements becoming second-tier mirrors. This thread is
an attempt to see what kind of interest there is in such an
idea and for
the developers to respond whether or not the idea has merit.
It
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Shayne Lebrun wrote:
Any reason why that percentage should be less than 100?
Cost of bandwidth, cost of equipment, and cost of administrating the
purchase/access system?
And liability insurance.
Hmm ...
which makes me wonder.
Say ...
1) I host an
/local/sbin/amavisd[1559]: (01559-08)
WARN: all primary virus scanners failed, considering backups
Aug 25 01:50:04 hostname /usr/local/sbin/amavisd[1559]: (01559-08)
Blocked INFECTED (Worm.SomeFool.P), [68.48.53.163]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED],
quarantine: virus-20040825-015000-01559
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote:
snip
It would help if you could define what you mean by a second-tier
mirror.
If you allow just anyone to connect, then what makes you second-tier
instead of primary-tier? And if you restrict your connections to
come
from within your domain,
I would love to setup a mirror, but 10Mbps and 100GB/month is more than
I've got available.
--TWH
By my count that makes 5 of us I recall seeing volunteer and it isn't even
an option yet.
As we are already trampling the rules with cnames to cnames... what about
this... the second tier cnames
Currently each mirror contributes around 100GB of traffic monthly
Perhaps (not sure of the DNS system in place) could be arranged so that 10%
of the requests a full primary mirror receives could be directed to a
secondary level mirror. With a committment of only roughly 10GB per month,
we'd
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:35:00 -0400
Dennis Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took a quick look around and it appears the zlib-dev list is private
(including the archives) and I don't see a bugzilla for them anywhere.
Is this problem known by them or just ClamAV ppl? Anyone know what/if
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:16:59 -0400
Joel Shellman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) I want to be notified of a virus found but under VirusEvent in
clamav.conf, how do I get the infected file's path?
%f is no longer supported - you have to write a script that takes a
virus name (%s) as an argument
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:26:50 +0700
Fajar A. Nugraha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm concerned about the fact that you only use one NS for
cvd.clamav.net though.
There will be at least 6 when the testing period is over.
Is there a fallback scenario (automagically revert to HTTP GETs) if
that NS
Graham Toal said:
Currently each mirror contributes around 100GB of traffic monthly
Perhaps (not sure of the DNS system in place) could be arranged so that
10%
of the requests a full primary mirror receives could be directed to a
secondary level mirror. With a committment of only roughly
Tim Howell said:
I would love to setup a mirror, but 10Mbps and 100GB/month is more than
I've got available.
Those figures don't account for clever scripting that some folks are
willing to implement that defeat the round-robin distribution now in
place. If you have a faster than average
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Tim Howell said:
I would love to setup a mirror, but 10Mbps and 100GB/month is more than
I've got available.
Those figures don't account for clever scripting that some folks are
willing to implement that defeat the round-robin distribution now
In fact that is why I chose to use the term franchisee earlier - so far
I've described only the first layer in all of this. A full working model
would be a tree structure not unlike the Amway model. Only without the
huckstering.
Associate it with a business model that creates revenue for the
45 matches
Mail list logo
