On 4/19/10 1:17 PM, Dan wrote:
Really, a mission-critical
product such as ClamAV needs to be watched by the sysadmin, not left for
someone else to do it for you.
You've passed the IQ test.
Next.
dp
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: vi
At 7:08 PM +0200 4/19/2010, aCaB wrote:
Paul Reading wrote:
I am using OSX Server 10.4.11 and it is at least five years old and the
latest version of Snow Leopard server includes a more recent version of
clamav. I assumed that the use of clamav was negotiated by Apple and
Clamav and that the
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Let's look at this from the OS "community" point of view...
...
I thought, yeah, I
can live with that. That won't impact me in any real way. I don't have
a problem with that. I didn't think about others. I didn't try to come
up with other solutions. I didn't try to
Thanks Chuck, I am just a guy running a light bulb wholesaling business.
It took me all day to work out how to install 0.95.3. I am now happy
because it works. I know the instructions said to set gcc to 4.0 (but
that was default) but the thing is I don't know what gcc is and
certainly do n
Hi, all--
On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Paul Reading wrote:
> I am using OSX Server 10.4.11 and it is at least five years old and the
> latest version of Snow Leopard server includes a more recent version of
> clamav. I assumed that the use of clamav was negotiated by Apple and Clamav
> and that
aCaB wrote:
Paul Reading wrote:
I am using OSX Server 10.4.11 and it is at least five years old and the
latest version of Snow Leopard server includes a more recent version of
clamav. I assumed that the use of clamav was negotiated by Apple and
Clamav and that there would have been some direct c
Paul Reading wrote:
> I am using OSX Server 10.4.11 and it is at least five years old and the
> latest version of Snow Leopard server includes a more recent version of
> clamav. I assumed that the use of clamav was negotiated by Apple and
> Clamav and that there would have been some direct contact.
I am using OSX Server 10.4.11 and it is at least five years old and
the latest version of Snow Leopard server includes a more recent
version of clamav. I assumed that the use of clamav was negotiated by
Apple and Clamav and that there would have been some direct contact.
The Apple boards of
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 17:34, Paul Reading
wrote:
> Sorry to but-in.. I have just wasted a day trying to get my companies mail
> working again. We have an Apple xServe and knew nothing about clamav until
> we stopped receiving our email this morning. I don't know how you could have
> communicated
Sorry to but-in.. I have just wasted a day trying to get my companies
mail working again. We have an Apple xServe and knew nothing about
clamav until we stopped receiving our email this morning. I don't know
how you could have communicated with us on this one but perhaps it
would have been
On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Simon Hobson :
Let's look at this from the OS "community" point of view...
We on this mailing list are part of the clamav open source
community...
As such, it is not clamav who failed, but it is us, the clamav
open source community,
Quoting Simon Hobson :
Let's look at this from the OS "community" point of view...
We on this mailing list are part of the clamav open source community...
As such, it is not clamav who failed, but it is us, the clamav
open source community, who failed...
When clamav asked about doing this, we f
Jim Preston wrote:
Yes, we all know that something had to be done, but just two days
ago, the argument most definitely was that there was **NO** other
option - absolutely no other option and this was the **ONLY** way
to do it.
Now you at least are coming round to the acceptance that there we
On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Jim Preston wrote:
Forcing an upgrade by flipping a kill switch was AN option, but it
wasn't the only one.
No one is arguing that there weren't other options. However, it was
their decision to make to move forward with incompatible signatur
Jim Preston wrote:
Forcing an upgrade by flipping a kill switch was AN option, but it
wasn't the only one.
No one is arguing that there weren't other options. However, it was
their decision to make to move forward with incompatible signatures
to support new features. Code changes were put in
On 2010-04-19 18:29, Tommaso Basilici wrote:
>
> So my question is: are they aware of the EOL? are they aware of the
> killer-switch policy in act? can we help anyhow if the answer is no?
Yes, look at bugs.debian.org/clamav, the clamav-volatile list, or
debian-security list.
All of these places h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Whelan wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2010 at 16:17, Tommaso Basilici wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I'm probably not fitting in the right place of the thread but I just
>> signed in and could not know where to start.
>> Ou
On 19 Apr 2010 at 16:17, Tommaso Basilici wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm probably not fitting in the right place of the thread but I just
> signed in and could not know where to start.
> Our only big problem with this upgrade is that the actual debian stable
> (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm probably not fitting in the right place of the thread but I just
signed in and could not know where to start.
Our only big problem with this upgrade is that the actual debian stable
(lenny) still uses 0.94 as shipping version and one has to get vol
Simon Hobson wrote:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Signature updates, yes, but not code updates. To make any changes,
you need code updates, not signature updates.
Apart from 0.95.3 released about the same time the kill decision was
made - could have put a code change in there. And 0.96 which was
r
> Quoting Giampaolo Tomassoni :
>
> > In 6 months there were many clamav updates. I would have put the
>
> Signature updates, yes, but not code updates. To make any changes,
> you need code updates, not signature updates.
Of course I meant code updates. How can you change the signature update c
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Signature updates, yes, but not code updates. To make any changes,
you need code updates, not signature updates.
Apart from 0.95.3 released about the same time the kill decision was
made - could have put a code change in there. And 0.96 which was
released a couple of w
Quoting Stephan von Krawczynski :
And really, the whole idea of eol'ing GPL software is really violating the
moral ground. And that is what makes people upset.
Almost every GPL software does a EOL system. Unless you mean EOL via kill-bit
then this statement doesn't make sense... EOL is a nor
Quoting Giampaolo Tomassoni :
In 6 months there were many clamav updates. I would have put the
Signature updates, yes, but not code updates. To make any changes,
you need code updates, not signature updates.
But then, we've about beat this horse to death...
--
Eric Rostetter
The Department
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:37:19 +0100
Stephen Gran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:50:09AM +0100, Simon Hobson said:
> > Dan wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, some updates can be problematic. But in this case, surely,
> > >there were updates during the year that worked just fine. In most
> > >cases, tho,
Stephen Gran wrote:
You seem to be massively missing the point. In a short while, there
will be signatures in the database that will have the same effect for
older versions of clamd, because they will trigger the same bug. Which
way would you prefer clamd to die - with a helpful error message,
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:50:09AM +0100, Simon Hobson said:
> Dan wrote:
>
> >Yes, some updates can be problematic. But in this case, surely,
> >there were updates during the year that worked just fine. In most
> >cases, tho, I'm thinking the people complaining slacked off
> >completely - unlik
Dan wrote:
Yes, some updates can be problematic. But in this case, surely,
there were updates during the year that worked just fine. In most
cases, tho, I'm thinking the people complaining slacked off
completely - unlike you, they didn't even bother to test the
releases.
And cf todays thr
On 4/17/10 9:03 PM, Jim Preston wrote:
I whole heartedly agree Dan. However I have been slandered today being
called arrogant and ignorant, so what do I know?
Yutz on the left, mench on the right. This EOL process has been a test. It was a
simple test to separate yutz from mench. If you faile
Dan wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0700 4/17/2010, Ralf Quint wrote:
At 02:09 PM 4/17/2010, Dan wrote:
Yea, I agree, the Clam team probably could have done things better.
But would more announcements or warnings have really made a
difference? Why would the people, that regularly ignore the
Freshclam war
At 2:30 PM -0700 4/17/2010, Ralf Quint wrote:
At 02:09 PM 4/17/2010, Dan wrote:
Yea, I agree, the Clam team probably could have done things better.
But would more announcements or warnings have really made a
difference? Why would the people, that regularly ignore the
Freshclam warnings, pay a
Ralf Quint wrote:
At 02:09 PM 4/17/2010, Dan wrote:
Those two lines look fairly clear to me. Essentially they're telling
you to get moving, get the update onto your to-be-done list. This
is, of course, re-enforced by the repeated EOL announcements on
Clam-announce.
I can think of two othe
At 02:09 PM 4/17/2010, Dan wrote:
Those two lines look fairly clear to me. Essentially they're
telling you to get moving, get the update onto your to-be-done
list. This is, of course, re-enforced by the repeated EOL
announcements on Clam-announce.
I can think of two other ways this could h
At 9:39 PM +0100 4/17/2010, Simon Hobson wrote:
Dan wrote:
So keeping up to date has it's own risks - hence why many people
take the attitude of "if it aint broke, don't fix it".
But being a YEAR out of date?
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.
Like I said, there ARE legitimate reason
Dan wrote:
So keeping up to date has it's own risks - hence why many people
take the attitude of "if it aint broke, don't fix it".
But being a YEAR out of date?
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.
Like I said, there ARE legitimate reasons for not always updating
every bit of software
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
You say you have mailinglists and customers called you?
No. I was speaking about a couple of fellows who consulted me because the
systems they assemble and sell (which are some kind of SuSE-based mailing
and faxing systems) broke and they weren't immediately able
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 01:15:45PM +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni said:
> ... omissis ...
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:56:38PM +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni said:
Fine. You filed your request. Now the maillist admins will decide if I was
runting, there. And will take action if needed.
Ok?
___
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 07:53:49PM +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni said:
> Would you please show me the 50 messages you speak about?
>
> Thanks.
I see off hand:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 01:15:45PM +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni said:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 02:12:15PM +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni said:
On F
> Can the listmoms please throttle or remove this guy? This is roughly
> 50
> messages containing the same rant over the last several days. There is
> no argument that needs to be spread over that much email and waste that
> much of everyone's time.
Would you please show me the 50 messages you s
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:48:38PM +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni said:
> I'm still waiting for you to show something, moron.
Can the listmoms please throttle or remove this guy? This is roughly 50
messages containing the same rant over the last several days. There is
no argument that needs to be sp
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
I do not want to be you customer after reading your messages here
in this Mailinglsts, because I show, you have not a singel clue
about importance of software parts...
I'm still waiting for you to show something, moron.
Giampaolo
Good Morning Giamp
At 2:14 PM +0100 4/16/2010, Simon Hobson wrote:
I hope that by now you may be realising that many people quite
legitimately did not know anything until things broke this morning.
We did not have 6 months notice - our servers "just broke".
I'm sorry, did I miss something? This should be a non-
Hello Giampaolo Tomassoni,
Am 2010-04-16 20:25:55, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> The way the clamav team managed this case hits the open software community
> as a whole, being the ClamAV project a well-known member of that community.
No, -- it hit a minority of ignorants!
Thanks, Greetings
> Obviously neither side of the discussion can be convinced. It would
> possibly be a good idea to through in some more general thoughts about
> GPL'ed software.
> If I understood RMS' basic intention right he is all for the freedom of
> the _user_. This basically means no software vendor or suppli
> Hello Giampaolo Tomassoni,
Hello Michelle,
> It depends on what youmean with "five small companies".
>
> Here I have a bunch of such small companies with 3-5 employees...
> where
> I maintain the Intranet-Server. And since they are All-In-One-
> Systems, one failure could take down the wh
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:25:24 -0500
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Leonardo Rodrigues :
>
> > it's VERY common in the software industry to stop supporting old
> > versions, but they simply stay working.
>
> For six months, you've been told to either upgrade or disable signature
> updates.
Hello Giampaolo Tomassoni,
Am 2010-04-16 17:55:16, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Maybe this happened, but I had two calls in the morning about this, for
> maybe five mailing systems which stopped working. Most of them are not
> easily upgradeable. After all, I can't care it the less. But what
Hello Christopher X. Candreva,
Am 2010-04-16 11:08:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> What you SHOULD take from this is that you may want to change how your
> milter is set up, so that if clamd dies, unscanned mail is passed rather
> than rejected or temp-failed.
When I read, that entires se
Hello Maurice Lucas - TAOS-IT,
Am 2010-04-16 15:56:55, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> I'm on multiple mailinglists I don't read every day but are on a ones
> a week a quick scan.
> And a lot of them are announce lists for all production critical
> software I use.
>
> If I run a ssh service on
On 4/16/10 8:05 AM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Was the 'stop gap' really useful? To which purpose? Did the ClamAV team
meant to stop old installations to work, in order to silence competitors?
Perhaps to teach to clamav users about the very complex nature of today
systems and services?
Unfortun
> But you have not been forced to go to bleeding edge. 0.95 is outdated
> but still receives the updates OK. In all development there comes a
> time when you have to break with compatibility in order to achieve the
> results you desire. The ClamAV team felt that this was the time.
Incompatibility
> None, and what you be doing next month when the new signatures came
> out and those same unpatched systems 'failed'?
According to the way I see it had to be, those unpatched systems would
simply don't get any update.
___
Help us build a comprehensive
> >>> What if your PS3 stops working because the maker thinks it is a
> too-old model to still go?
> >>
> >> A fine question. Let's suppose a certain old PS3 model has a
> serious
> >> manufacturing defect, such that it can overheat and catch fire.
> >
> > Which is not our case...
>
> You suggest
> >
> > Wasn't it better to simply let these system go the way they were used
> to?
> >
> > What's the difference from the clamav standpoint?
>
> The ClamAV developers want to continue on with things they way they are
> used to. They don't want to overhaul their update system just so they
> can c
> > I see you're quite far from it at the moment, since you are trying to
> > drive people to think that complains are only from bad sysadms. I
> > can't of course speak for others, but I'm complaining because of the
> > bad light in which the ClamAV team put open-software with the 0.96
> > case.
>
I agree with you entirely. You're welcome to roll back to the
2010-4-
14 virus signatures before the less-than-0.95 kill switch was turned
on, and your outdated ClamAV will continue to run just fine with
these
old signatures.
This is feasible, but know needs some kind of human intervention
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Simon Hobson wrote:
Jerry wrote:
> Err, it does have something to do with it. You made the assertion
that no-one would spend money replacing a system rather than upgrade
it. Two of us now have pointed out that real world PHB do exactly
that sort of thing - and thi
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of
proactively
breaking running systems.
Exactly. They proactively broke the scanner so people would know why
it
broke, rather than letting it die with nothing more than an obs
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
And you are free to do so, just as the developers are free to release
signatures that do not work with older versions. That is ALL that
happened. In doing so, clamd fails to be able to properly read the
database and fails.
Things are a bi
> > An open-source project is not supposed to change rules at will. The
> license
> > itself of open source software is often oriented toward this view,
> such
> > that
> > it guarantees people to keep using software they already got, even
> when the
> > project becomes a completely commercial one.
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Obviously, you are choosing to be dense. The bottom line is that the
particulars regarding this event were published. Whether or not you
availed yourself of that notification is immaterial. There was not
anything nefarious in the ClamAV tea
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop
working.
Not even Microsoft do this.
I can't tell you how many support calls I've received over the years
with people saying "my Internet stopped working" and it was due
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop
working.
I would not describe what they did that way.
Older versions of clamd were going to crash on signatures that newer
versions would accept, and the devs have been p
> > An open-source project is not supposed to change rules at will. The
> > license
> > itself of open source software is often oriented toward this view,
> > such that
> > it guarantees people to keep using software they already got, even
> > when the
> > project becomes a completely commercial on
On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>>> What if your PS3 stops working because the maker thinks it is a too-old
>>> model to still go?
>>
>> A fine question. Let's suppose a certain old PS3 model has a serious
>> manufacturing defect, such that it can overheat and catch fire.
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Pointing out that they are wrong, why they are wrong, and how they
should
do things instead _IS_ helping them. That is the way people work,
that
is the way people learn, that is how wrong situations get corrected.
The only "wrong sit
> Just one remark: Anyone Ran Linux on their PlayStation lately?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Removal_of_.22Other_OS.22_su
> pport_with_firmware_v3.21
Aaah, see? This is how things go with commercial products. This to the
various iPad/iPhone etc. It is the same or even worse.
P
On 4/16/2010 7:08 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of
proactively
breaking running systems.
Exactly. They proactively broke the scanner so people would know why
it
broke, rather than letting it die with nothing more than an obscure
mal
> On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> >> The owner of the box. They may not be qualified to manage the
> machine,
> >> but computers don't plug themselves into the network-- every machine
> >> belongs to someone who pays for electrical power and network
> >> connectivity.
> >
> > I'm know a bit uncomfortable with the idea that the ClamAV team can
> so
> > easily "unplug the wire". When there are other ways to do the same
> with few
> > more effort, if at all, too.
>
> So am I. And I'm a little uncomfortable that I didn't suggest other
> ways to accomplish this when th
Jerry wrote:
> Err, it does have something to do with it. You made the assertion
that no-one would spend money replacing a system rather than upgrade
it. Two of us now have pointed out that real world PHB do exactly
that sort of thing - and this issue with clamav getting the kill
switch ca
> > This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of
> proactively
> > breaking running systems.
>
> Exactly. They proactively broke the scanner so people would know why
> it
> broke, rather than letting it die with nothing more than an obscure
> malformatted hexstring error.
Wasn't
> And you are free to do so, just as the developers are free to release
> signatures that do not work with older versions. That is ALL that
> happened. In doing so, clamd fails to be able to properly read the
> database and fails.
Things are a bit more complex, because I see the problem of long si
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:50:09 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni
articulated:
> > > Err, it does have something to do with it. You made the assertion
> > > that no-one would spend money replacing a system rather than
> > > upgrade it. Two of us now have pointed out that real world PHB do
> > > exactly tha
> It isn't the software per se that is the problem, it is the virus
> database subscription... If you want to maintain your own virus
> database, you can run as old a version of clamav software as you want.
>
> Asking clamav to support definitions for old versions is like asking
> other vendors t
> Obviously, you are choosing to be dense. The bottom line is that the
> particulars regarding this event were published. Whether or not you
> availed yourself of that notification is immaterial. There was not
> anything nefarious in the ClamAV team's actions. You have obviously
> bought into the s
> > The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop
> working.
> > Not even Microsoft do this.
>
> I can't tell you how many support calls I've received over the years
> with people saying "my Internet stopped working" and it was due to
> their
> Norton or McAfee license expirin
> > The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop
> working.
>
> I would not describe what they did that way.
>
> Older versions of clamd were going to crash on signatures that newer
> versions would accept, and the devs have been prevented for at least 6
> months from using
> Pointing out that they are wrong, why they are wrong, and how they
> should
> do things instead _IS_ helping them. That is the way people work, that
> is the way people learn, that is how wrong situations get corrected.
The only "wrong situation" I see is the fact that bunch of people, urged by
> >>
> >> Check the mailing list archives...
> >
> > Let me see: I subscribed to this list in Nov 2009. I need more time
> > to fetch
> > it.
> >
> >
> > Giampaolo
> >
> >
>
> Then how could you possibly have missed the announcement that clamd
> installations will be disabled?
Probably I didn't e
On Apr 16, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni <
giampa...@tomassoni.biz> wrote:
Because I'm a bit old. And I like freedom. And I prefer to have to
bother
with mailing lists and bulletin reports and have the control of
systems,
instead
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni <
giampa...@tomassoni.biz> wrote:
> Because I'm a bit old. And I like freedom. And I prefer to have to bother
> with mailing lists and bulletin reports and have the control of systems,
> instead of put my work in the hand of people who could cha
> > Err, it does have something to do with it. You made the assertion
> > that no-one would spend money replacing a system rather than upgrade
> > it. Two of us now have pointed out that real world PHB do exactly
> > that sort of thing - and this issue with clamav getting the kill
> > switch can be
On Apr 16, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Instead, I preferred ClamAV. And I'm still helping the way I can: I'm
reporting malware, and now I'm debating on the 0.96 case. And I'm
really sad
when I discover that a move could put in danger the reputability of
the
whole project.
On 4/16/10 23:18 , Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>
>>> The owner of the box. They may not be qualified to manage the machine,
>>> but computers don't plug themselves into the network-- every machine
>>> belongs to someone who pays for electrical p
On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>> The owner of the box. They may not be qualified to manage the machine,
>> but computers don't plug themselves into the network-- every machine
>> belongs to someone who pays for electrical power and network
>> connectivity.
>
> What if yo
> >I guess around 25-50% of the malware is old, well-known one. So it is
> not
> >that silly to have an outdated AV running to lower the received one.
> >
> >But anyway, we are speaking of stuff which worked. It wasn't perfect,
> but it
> >worked. And in this days the ClamAV staff decided to break
Original Message
From: clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net
[mailto:clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net] On Behalf Of Giampaolo
Tomassoni Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 2:17 PM To: 'ClamAV users ML'
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] The EOL tweets
>> The sysadmins could h
Quoting Giampaolo Tomassoni :
I'm know a bit uncomfortable with the idea that the ClamAV team can so
easily "unplug the wire". When there are other ways to do the same with few
more effort, if at all, too.
So am I. And I'm a little uncomfortable that I didn't suggest other
ways to accomplish
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 22:30 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> So ClamAV should obey to the rules governing the open-software community.
>
> One is that everybody is free to run it own copy of the software, in
> whichever shape he/she likes it.
You can use ClamAV how ever you like. You just ca
On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Then that is their choice and when it fails, they can bitch to the
developers of that system and switch to another vendor ...
Apart the fact that open software is not yet-another-vendor. It is a
culture.
No, ClamAV is a VENDOR tha
Quoting Giampaolo Tomassoni :
No, ClamAV is a VENDOR that happens to be part of the open software
community.
So ClamAV should obey to the rules governing the open-software community.
One is that everybody is free to run it own copy of the software, in
whichever shape he/she likes it.
It isn
> >> The sysadmins could have done this by turning off freshclam..
> and
> >> saved themselves from having to deal with the upgrade.
> >
> > Who is the sysadmin of an unmanaged box?
>
> The owner of the box. They may not be qualified to manage the machine,
> but computers don't plug thems
> >> Then that is their choice and when it fails, they can bitch to the
> >> developers of that system and switch to another vendor ...
> >
> > Apart the fact that open software is not yet-another-vendor. It is a
> > culture.
> >
>
> No, ClamAV is a VENDOR that happens to be part of the open s
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:56:39 +0200, Giampaolo Tomassoni
articulated:
[snip]
Obviously, you are choosing to be dense. The bottom line is that the
particulars regarding this event were published. Whether or not you
availed yourself of that notification is immaterial. There was not
anything nefario
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 16:00 -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> Older versions of clamd were going to crash on signatures that newer
> versions would accept, and the devs have been prevented for at least 6
> months from using that type of signature. They have posted since then for
> people
On 2010/04/16 3:56 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop working.
Not even Microsoft do this.
I can't tell you how many support calls I've received over the years
with people saying "my Internet stopped working" and it was due to thei
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
> The ClamAV team have commanded old versions of its product to stop working.
I would not describe what they did that way.
Older versions of clamd were going to crash on signatures that newer
versions would accept, and the devs have been prevented
> > If nobody had to turn off freshclam, why clamscan had to stop
> working?
>
> Have you actually been reading and comprehending what has been stated
> in this thread?
Yes, I did. Did you? If you know, just tell me why.
> > In this thread I'm seeing a lot of people blaming the sysadmin. Is it
Quoting Giampaolo Tomassoni :
> In this thread I'm seeing a lot of people blaming the sysadmin. Is it
> crowded by sysadmins who like to show they are much more competent
than
> their colleagues?
Yes, of course it is.
Which is wrong, anyway. Since nobody is perfect, instead of pointing out th
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
