Robert wrote:
It's only happened the once. By the time I inspected the
/usr/local/share/clamav
directory there was no sign of a .dbLock file.
However, the database directory is definitely writable by clamd.
It's owned by the clamav user.
Since the restart of clamd it has been behaving
Hello,
Yesterday I ugraded clamav to 90.1. All went fine and the software worked
well but today in the morning clamd retreived new signatures and:
Mar 16 11:34:10 192 freshclam[36963]: Database updated (99431 signatures)
from db.pl.clamav.net (IP: 212.14.28.36)
followed by:
Mar 16 11:36:00
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:39:23 +0100
Zbigniew Szalbot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Yesterday I ugraded clamav to 90.1. All went fine and the software worked
well but today in the morning clamd retreived new signatures and:
Mar 16 11:34:10 192 freshclam[36963]: Database updated (99431
On 16 Mar 2007, at 15:39, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello,
Yesterday I ugraded clamav to 90.1. All went fine and the software
worked
well but today in the morning clamd retreived new signatures and:
Mar 16 11:34:10 192 freshclam[36963]: Database updated (99431
signatures)
from
Hello,
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated as it was several hours
before I spotted this and manually restarted clamd. Oddly, mail was still
being delivered, but without any virus checks ??
Ok, this is what I meant - clamd was not working. I had to manually
restart it. However, I must
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello,
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated as it was several hours
before I spotted this and manually restarted clamd. Oddly, mail was still
being delivered, but without any virus checks ??
Ok, this is what I meant - clamd was not working. I had to manually
Hello,
Do you mean it rejects it or tempfails it? A tempfail is a legitimate
condition when your processes are in a failed state. So too is reject, but
certainly more drastic and likely to create political repercussions. Worst
is to silently drop messages.
It tempfails them, which is fine
On 16 Mar 2007, at 17:20, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello,
Do you mean it rejects it or tempfails it? A tempfail is a legitimate
condition when your processes are in a failed state. So too is
reject, but
certainly more drastic and likely to create political
repercussions. Worst
is to
On 3/16/07, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 Mar 2007, at 17:20, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello,
Do you mean it rejects it or tempfails it? A tempfail is a legitimate
condition when your processes are in a failed state. So too is
reject, but
certainly more drastic and likely to
On 16 Mar 2007, at 19:16, Török Edvin wrote:
On 3/16/07, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 Mar 2007, at 17:20, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Hello,
Do you mean it rejects it or tempfails it? A tempfail is a
legitimate
condition when your processes are in a failed state. So too is
10 matches
Mail list logo
