Hello Michael,
the file that is BROKEN is larger:
2447360 Feb 10 16:03 daily.cld
the file that works is smaller:
909036 Feb 10 16:34 daily.cvd
.cvd is compressed, .cld is uncompressed, that's why it's larger.
Best regards
--
Luca Gibelli (luca _at_ clamav.net) ClamAV, a GPL
Could someone please give some insight into what happened
the the v12663 daily.cld? How long did it take to notice the
problem, and how quickly was it fixed?
For us it took down clamd on 15 servers at 00:03 today, and
we received the fix 3 hours later... but clamd wasn't restarter
before later
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:54:02 +0100 Jan-Frode Myklebust
janfr...@tanso.net wrote:
Could someone please give some insight into what happened
the the v12663 daily.cld? How long did it take to notice the
problem, and how quickly was it fixed?
The database included a signature which was not
On 2011 Feb 11, at 13:54 , Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
For us it took down clamd on 15 servers at 00:03 today, and
we received the fix 3 hours later... but clamd wasn't restarter
before later this morning, leading to huge mailqueues.
We should probably look into verifying the db before
On 2/11/2011 8:31 AM, Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
On the other hand, since you haven't updated ClamAV in over a year, leading to
(significantly) decreased detection, maybe the scanning of email isn't top
priority, and your mail scanning engine needs to fallback to letting mail
through on scan
On Feb 11, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Vincent Fox wrote:
On 2/11/2011 8:31 AM, Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
On the other hand, since you haven't updated ClamAV in over a year, leading
to (significantly) decreased detection, maybe the scanning of email isn't
top priority, and your mail scanning engine
On 2011-02-11, Jan-Pieter Cornet joh...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On 2011 Feb 11, at 13:54 , Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
For us it took down clamd on 15 servers at 00:03 today, and
we received the fix 3 hours later... but clamd wasn't restarter
before later this morning, leading to huge mailqueues.
On 2/11/11 2:17 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
We fail over to using commandline clamscan, which means it keeps flowing,
but apparently too slowly on our most busy servers.
with all the new sigs, sane sigs, google safebrowsing, clamscan cli is
mostly useless.
(our mail server times out on a
On 2/11/2011 2:17 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
We have a strong preference to running only RHEL5+EPEL packages,
so we're kind of stuck on 0.95.1 until EPEL updates or we move to
RHEL6+EPEL which gives us clamav-0.96.1. I expect you will have quite
a few users with the same/similar
On 2/11/11 2:59 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
FWIW, rpmforge has clamav-0.96.5 at the moment. Personally, I would
swap repos if epel is going to take over 1.5 years (!) to update an
antivirus package.
go freebsd! (ok, its not linux). but 0.97 was in ports 38 mins after
clamav released it.
--
On 2/11/2011 2:59 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 2/11/2011 2:17 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
We have a strong preference to running only RHEL5+EPEL packages,
so we're kind of stuck on 0.95.1 until EPEL updates or we move to
RHEL6+EPEL which gives us clamav-0.96.1. I expect you will have quite
On 2011 Feb 11, at 17:56 , Vincent Fox wrote:
On 2/11/2011 8:31 AM, Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
On the other hand, since you haven't updated ClamAV in over a year, leading
to (significantly) decreased detection, maybe the scanning of email isn't
top priority, and your mail scanning engine needs
On 02/11/2011 12:59 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 2/11/2011 2:17 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
We have a strong preference to running only RHEL5+EPEL packages,
so we're kind of stuck on 0.95.1 until EPEL updates or we move to
RHEL6+EPEL which gives us clamav-0.96.1. I expect you will have quite
13 matches
Mail list logo
