Fajar A. Nugraha writes:
Okay, now suppose that clamd works in a "complicated" way, so that
"The effect is that you don't *always* get back what you free() when you
free()",
Do you have any suggestion as to how to get back the free()d memory?
Will (borrowing Apache's way) using a prefork-kind
* On 2004.09.15, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Fajar A. Nugraha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you have any suggestion as to how to get back the free()d memory?
> Will (borrowing Apache's way) using a prefork-kind of daemon, with
> limited lifetime
> for each child, be better (in sense of
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Fact: We've been running clamd for a week now, scanning 130.000 mails
per week.
With that amount you shouldn't have any problem.
Try 1157851 mail per day (that's yesterday's count on one of my MTAs).
Question: Why do I see 4 clamd processes?
Might be threads implementat
Graham Toal wrote:
Just as an FYI, when I wrote my smtp filter daemon, I gave some
thought to preforking, using threads, etc - but for the first implementation
I just let xinetd kick it off as a regular on-demand process.
[snip]
So unless you have a site with more than a couple of thousand users
Trog wrote:
Apache has been moving away from the "prefork-kind of daemon" towards
threads for a number of years.
Yes, but in case you didn't notice prefork is STILL the default MPM if
no specific one
is chosen. It's for "compatibility purposes" mostly, for modules that
are not thread-safe yet.
> > Do you have any suggestion as to how to get back the free()d memory?
> > Will (borrowing Apache's way) using a prefork-kind of daemon, with
> > limited lifetime
> > for each child, be better (in sense of memory management) than the current
> > thread implementation? Or perhaps limiting the lif
* Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > That was not my claim, but the other person's.
>
> I know, I believe I correctly kept the attribution. You merely believed
> it at face value.
Fact: We've been running clamd for a week now, scanning 130.000 mails
per week. It has not died on us, nor is it using hu
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 15:17, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Ok, THAT's bad - and should be fixed.
> >
> > If it were true it would be. Please point me at some code in clamd that
> > does that.
>
> That was not my claim, but the other person's.
I know, I believe I
Quoting Nigel Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wednesday 15 Sep 2004 09:12, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
Hi,
I just wonder why 'clamscan --mbox' says OK whenever there is a
'X-Virus-Flag:
Yes' mail header line (a virus a definitely included). If I remove this
header line from the mail, the same command reports
* Trog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ok, THAT's bad - and should be fixed.
>
> If it were true it would be. Please point me at some code in clamd that
> does that.
That was not my claim, but the other person's.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrum) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charite - Universi
On Sep 15, 2004, at 9:45 AM, Paul Bijnens wrote:
I was hoping >12 year old could could at least change a few bytes
here them selves. Like this:
Thank you, and I apologize for sounding quite so terse earlier. It's
one of those mornings again and I was a little irked at the summary
"man this", "m
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 22:05, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:54:19 +0400
>
> Dmitry Alexeyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, is it possible to use unpacked database files with clamscan?
>
> You can unpack databases with `sigtool --unpack-current main.cvd`
> (the same for dail
On Sep 14, 2004, at 10:32 PM, Steve Lenti wrote:
man procmailex
What I was looking for was some clarification, since it looked like
most of the examples close to what I wanted were for *copying*, not
*redirecting*. I've looked through the man pages and some examples
online, and even the example
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:51:41 -0400, Bart Silverstrim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying to integrate a clamav with a simple sitewide procmail recipe
>> to run clamscan-procfilter then take action if the headers contain the
>> virus tag (X-CLAMAV). The first part of the recipe in
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 12:27, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:58:41AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > > Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> > > > memory allocation error, but sleep.
> > >
> > > It doesn't die, it'
* Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:58:41AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> > > memory allocation error, but sleep.
> >
> > It doesn't die, it's being killed by the kernel.
>
> No - clamd does a malloc and t
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 10:16, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> Do you have any suggestion as to how to get back the free()d memory?
> Will (borrowing Apache's way) using a prefork-kind of daemon, with
> limited lifetime
> for each child, be better (in sense of memory management) than the current
> thread
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:12:01 +0200, Tim Ruehsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wonder why 'clamscan --mbox' says OK whenever there is a 'X-Virus-Flag:
> Yes' mail header line (a virus a definitely included). If I remove this
> header line from the mail, the same command reports the
On Wednesday 15 Sep 2004 09:12, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wonder why 'clamscan --mbox' says OK whenever there is a 'X-Virus-Flag:
> Yes' mail header line (a virus a definitely included). If I remove this
> header line from the mail, the same command reports the virus correctly.
>
> Wo
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:58:41AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> > memory allocation error, but sleep.
>
> It doesn't die, it's being killed by the kernel.
No - clamd does a malloc and that fails. Then instead of dying (which would
be
David Champion wrote:
[snip]
All this is just to throw in with that camp that says these are no
indications of memory leaks. Now back to your regularly-scheduled virus
discussion.
Your comment has been the most enlightning so far on memory allocation :)
Okay, now suppose that clamd works in a "c
On Wednesday 15 Sep 2004 07:23, Max Chernogor wrote:
> >> I want to use this option for two servers runing clamd.
> >> What commandline for clamav-milter should be?
>
> NH> Here's my command line:
> NH> /usr/local/sbin/clamav-milter --max-children=2 --debug
> NH> --dont-wait --timeout=0
> NH> --s
> 2) *IMPORTANT QUESTION* is there an option I can setup so if a user sends
> an attachment that Clam will look at and see a potential virus (based upon
> my attachment rules) and email the user back telling them that the email
> will not be sent?
clamav-milter has that option (but you're using M
Hi,
I just wonder why 'clamscan --mbox' says OK whenever there is a 'X-Virus-Flag:
Yes' mail header line (a virus a definitely included). If I remove this
header line from the mail, the same command reports the virus correctly.
Wouldn't it be good advice for virus programmers to include 'X-Viru
* On 2004.09.15, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "D Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I sat down in front of a Solaris 9 system, installed clamav as
> instructed and yes indeed there appears to be a problem with the
> implementation of free(), in 30 mins of sending e-mail from the EICAR
* Fajar A. Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because softlimit is a hack.
It is not a hack. It is common pratice to run programs using least
privilege and with limited resource to prevent runaway conditions.
> Because current clamd implementation is not to "die" on
> memory allocation error, but sl
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Fajar A. Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Which brings my earlier suggestion. Is there any way to put a
built-in memory limiter (not external program like softlimit) to
clamd?
Why add code to clamd when a good unix-like solution already exists?
Because softlimit is
On Sep 15, 2004, at 01:48, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
D Walsh wrote:
I sat down in front of a Solaris 9 system, installed clamav as
instructed and yes indeed there appears to be a problem with the
implementation of free(), in 30 mins of sending e-mail from the EICAR
test site memory did climb to
28 matches
Mail list logo
