>
> 0 as result code should be only used, when everything is ok - no
> error or viruses. Otherwise, from the source of clamdscan it seems,
> that it has 3 result codes, but I might have missed something:
> 0 - everything is ok
> 1 - virus found
> 2 - error
Be careful, this may violate the
Trog wrote:
The message you just sent me got stopped:
VIRUS ALERT: Worm.Bagle.Gen-zippwd
Right. I'll be upgrading then :o)
Thanks for your time.
--
Regards
/Franck
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 09:34, Franck wrote:
> Does this mean you want submissions of encrypted zip archives if they
> aren't getting caught?
> 'Cause I'm getting hit by what Symantec identifies as Bagle.J in
> encrypted archives that have slipped by Clam even with the newest
> updates.
The message
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 09:34, Franck wrote:
> Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>
> > Submission: n/a
> > Sender: Diego d'Ambra
> > Virus name: Worm.Bagle.Gen-zippwd
> > Notes: Generic signature to detect password-protected Bagle zip files
> > The signature matches encrypted zip files.
>
> Does this mean you wan
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
Submission: n/a
Sender: Diego d'Ambra
Virus name: Worm.Bagle.Gen-zippwd
Notes: Generic signature to detect password-protected Bagle zip files
The signature matches encrypted zip files.
Does this mean you want submissions of encrypted zip archives if they
aren't getting caught?
'
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:53:32 + (GMT), Andy Fiddaman wrote:
>
> handling application to make a decision about what it lets through.
>
> 0Not scanned, unable to handle the object.
> 1Not scanned due to an I/O error.
> 2Not scanned, as the scanner ran out of memory.
>
