Dennis Peterson wrote:
The question wasn't directed to my but I'd like to see them be more
selective as to who should be allowed to use this product. Maybe an
IQ test.
Really that is an insulting statement - and completely un called for.
It's exactly the sort of attitude that drives people
Hello,
I had to upgrade my clamav-milter installation past week due to end-of-life
on a Debian Lenny system. So I included the volatile distribution, and
upgraded to 0.95.3. I'm using it in conjunction with Postfix and with the
unofficial sigs.
Everything works, given that every now and
Rutger ter Borg wrote:
Hello,
I had to upgrade my clamav-milter installation past week due to end-of-life
on a Debian Lenny system. So I included the volatile distribution, and
upgraded to 0.95.3. I'm using it in conjunction with Postfix and with the
unofficial sigs.
Everything works,
Does anyone know if there is still a Windows compilation which will run on
Windows Server 2003 SP2? ClamAV (clam-latest-32.exe) refuses to install on this
operating system and ClamWin seems to have mutated into a desktop product which
lacks clamd and clamdscan etc.
Regards,
Tim.
Does anyone know if there is still a Windows compilation which will run on
Windows Server 2003 SP2? ClamAV (clam-latest-32.exe) refuses to install on this
operating system and ClamWin seems to have mutated into a desktop product which
lacks clamd and clamdscan etc.
Regards,
Tim.
Does anyone know if there is still a Windows compilation which will run on
Windows Server 2003 SP2? ClamAV (clam-latest-32.exe) refuses to install on
this operating system and ClamWin seems to have mutated into a desktop
product which lacks clamd and clamdscan etc.
Hi Tim,
Have you tried
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 17:28 -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote:
[...]
The question wasn't directed to my but I'd like to see them be more selective
as
to who should be allowed to use this product. Maybe an IQ test.
No. Everyone should be allowed to shoot in the foot - with free/open
source or
Does anyone know if there is still a Windows compilation which will run on
Windows Server 2003 SP2? ClamAV (clam-latest-32.exe) refuses to install on
this operating system and ClamWin seems to have mutated into a desktop
product which lacks clamd and clamdscan etc.
Speaking of the
Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
Maybe you've got this ???
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=527862
h There's a patch for it but I don't know if debian people
already integrated it into the distrib.
Either way, if not, consider installing the libmilter
Thanks Steve,
The Sourceforge one is looking good. There seem to be a few conf changes
since I configured my elderly and now expired 0.92 but I should be able
to work those out.
Regards,
Tim
-Original Message-
From: clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net
On 20 Apr 2010 at 9:50, tim.had...@bl.uk wrote:
Does anyone know if there is still a Windows compilation which will
run on Windows Server 2003 SP2? ClamAV (clam-latest-32.exe) refuses to
install on this operating system and ClamWin seems to have mutated
into a desktop product which lacks
On 19-04-2010 17:34, Jim Preston wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Andy Loates wrote:
On 19/04/2010 19:41, Clovis Tristao wrote:
Hi *all,
How do i do to install 0.96 version using yum in Fedora 12?
Thanks a lot,
Clóvis
From previous experiences going back to FC3 the Clamav package is
Hi I have problem with instalation the new clamav 0.96
In module make chech results:
FAIL: check_clamav
PASS: check_freshclam.sh
PASS: check_sigtool.sh
SKIP: check_unit_vg.sh
PASS: check1_clamscan.sh
PASS: check2_clamd.sh
PASS: check3_clamd.sh
PASS: check4_clamd.sh
SKIP: check5_clamd_vg.sh
On 04/20/2010 02:01 PM, Eduardo wrote:
Hi I have problem with instalation the new clamav 0.96
In module make chech results:
FAIL: check_clamav
PASS: check_freshclam.sh
PASS: check_sigtool.sh
SKIP: check_unit_vg.sh
PASS: check1_clamscan.sh
PASS: check2_clamd.sh
PASS: check3_clamd.sh
Hi,
zlib is not the problem but I think it is a problem with a lib that other
systems not have.
- Original Message -
Hi!
Solved ... Here the details:
https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1950
Thanks to Török Edwin, aCaB and the ClamAV Team!
Upgrading zlib to 1.2.4 I've
Hello,
After downloading the new clamav-0.96.tar.gz package and the .sig, I
followed the instructions in the FAQ
to verify the signature and get the following output:
$ gpg --verify clamav-0.96.tar.gz.sig clamav-0.96.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Wed Mar 31 14:07:31 2010 EDT using DSA key ID
My environment:
AIX 4.3.3 (rather old)
Gcc 2.95.2 (also old)
Clamav 0.96
export CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc
export CFLAGS=-D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D_ALL_SOURCE
export LDFLAGS=-lpthreads -liconv
./configure --disable-clamav --disable-static --enable-shared
It compiled with no problem.
However, when I ran
On 04/20/2010 06:36 PM, RICHARD (IT) FERNANDEZ wrote:
Hello,
After downloading the new clamav-0.96.tar.gz package and the .sig, I
followed the instructions in the FAQ
to verify the signature and get the following output:
$ gpg --verify clamav-0.96.tar.gz.sig clamav-0.96.tar.gz
gpg:
On 04/20/2010 06:59 PM, Vigil, Joe wrote:
My environment:
AIX 4.3.3 (rather old)
Gcc 2.95.2 (also old)
We don't support this compiler, but it looks like it still built ClamAV.
Clamav 0.96
Scanned files: 46
Infected files: 44
You are probably missing bzip2, and perhaps clam.ea06.
Try
Maybe it got corrupted during download?
What is the md5/sha256 hash of it?
Best regards,
--Edwin
Yes. I should've tried to d/l it again before sending to the list.
Sorry.
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
-Original Message-
From: clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net [mailto:clamav-users-
boun...@lists.clamav.net] On Behalf Of Török Edwin
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:31 AM
To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Make check on 0.96 fails with AIX 4.3.3
On
Spiro Harvey wrote:
Shame you haven't talked to to others - like havp for example - before
doing this.
The announcement to EOL the old releases was made at the start of
october last year. If people using clam as an integral part of their
software don't read announcements, what fault is that of
On 04/21/2010 02:36 PM, Steve Wray wrote:
Because Clamav is now in the same category as Apple, Amazon and Sony
(to name three that come to mind right away). This is the category of
vendors who have remotely disabled (or removed) software running on
computers or devices belonging to their
Steve Wray wrote:
Spiro Harvey wrote:
Shame you haven't talked to to others - like havp for example - before
doing this.
The announcement to EOL the old releases was made at the start of
october last year. If people using clam as an integral part of their
software don't read announcements,
Jim Preston wrote:
Steve Wray wrote:
Spiro Harvey wrote:
Shame you haven't talked to to others - like havp for example - before
doing this.
The announcement to EOL the old releases was made at the start of
october last year. If people using clam as an integral part of their
software don't
Well, prosecution would be justified if ClamAV had actually done
something illegal. What they did was modifiy their signature database to
support new features with advance notice and the fact that any
particular installation of unsupported software failed to handle it
properly is the onus of
Steve Wray wrote:
I am not a lawyer but I do think that this is something that the
authorities might possibly examine.
I do think that pushing out an update which disables functionality
without explicitly requesting permission to make such a change
*before* making that change *should* be
27 matches
Mail list logo
