I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV, version 2.2.2.
I am not a computer engineer, just a user. On getting the daily message in
Console that my ClamAV engine is outdated (don't panic), I deleted Clam and its
associated files from my machine and redownloaded it from you
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
> I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV, version
> 2.2.2. I am not a computer engineer, just a user. On getting the daily
> message in Console that my ClamAV engine is outdated (don't panic), I deleted
> Clam and its
On 03/06/2012 12:43 PM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
> I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV, version
> 2.2.2.
You mean ClamXav, which is a graphical frontend to ClamAV.
Apparently ClamXav 2.2.2 comes with ClamAV engine version 0.97.2. The latest
version of the ClamAV engine is
On 03/06/2012 02:23 PM, shuttlebox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
>> I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV, version
>> 2.2.2. I am not a computer engineer, just a user. On getting the daily
>> message in Console that my ClamAV engine is ou
2012/3/6 Török Edwin :
> On 03/06/2012 02:23 PM, shuttlebox wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
>>> I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV, version
>>> 2.2.2. I am not a computer engineer, just a user. On getting the daily
>>> message in Consol
Hi there,
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Steve Kirkby wrote:
I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV,
version 2.2.2. I am not a computer engineer, just a user. ...
...
What to do please? (Perhaps Clam is too unfriendly for ordinary
users.)
Thanks for any help (but no unix code or
On 6 Mar 2012, at 14:49, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Steve Kirkby wrote:
>
>> I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV,
>> version 2.2.2. I am not a computer engineer, just a user. ...
>> ...
>> What to do please? (Perhaps Clam is too unfriendly for ordinary
>>
On 3/6/12 2:43 AM, "Steve Kirkby" wrote:
> I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV, version
> 2.2.2. I am not a computer engineer, just a user. On getting the daily message
> in Console that my ClamAV engine is outdated (don't panic), I deleted Clam and
> its associated fi
Following Edwin's reply (and thanks for that) I visited the clamav.net site. I
downloaded the ClamAV 0.97.3 install guide. It consists of 17 pages of highly
technical instructions which are so beyond me that I could not even think of
doing anything that it says: Firmware password; Terminal instr
On 3/7/2012 2:25 PM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
> Following Edwin's reply (and thanks for that) I visited the clamav.net site.
> I downloaded the ClamAV 0.97.3 install guide. It consists of 17 pages of
> highly technical instructions which are so beyond me that I could not even
> think of doing anythin
On 3/7/12 11:25 AM, "Steve Kirkby" wrote:
> Following Edwin's reply (and thanks for that) I visited the clamav.net site.
>
Did you not receive a reply from Mark Allan or myself? You should not be
attempting to install the engine on a Mac. The appropriate site for
assistance with ClamXav, to incl
On 07-03-2012 11:25, Steve Kirkby wrote:
Following Edwin's reply (and thanks for that) I visited the clamav.net site. I downloaded the
ClamAV 0.97.3 install guide. It consists of 17 pages of highly technical instructions which are so
beyond me that I could not even think of doing anything that
On 03/07/2012 12:25 PM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
I accept that clam is a good anti-malware software, and that those who
understand all this technicality are very knowledgable and intelligent, but it
is so many light-years away for the average consumer that it is unsuitable for
any other user than
: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:47:57 -0700
> From: jimli...@commspeed.net
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: Re: [clamav-users] My outdated Clam.
>
> On 03/07/2012 12:25 PM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
> >
> > I accept that clam is a good anti-malware software, and t
> From: k...@today.plus.com
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:43:18 +
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: [clamav-users] My outdated Clam
>
> I can't get through the tech. complexity of upgrading my ClamAV, version
> 2.2.2. I am not a computer engineer, just a user. On getting
Shawn Bakhtiar said:
"It's [Clam] not just good, it's great ".
I am sure it is. But it is only for highly technically competent people. (And
there is nothing wrong in that.)
"Yes, the average consumer should not be concerned with such stuff, but if
you'r on this list, I would hardly consider y
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
> Shawn Bakhtiar said:
>
> "It's [Clam] not just good, it's great ".
>
> I am sure it is. But it is only for highly technically competent people. (And
> there is nothing wrong in that.)
I disagree with that assertion. ClamAV in it's source
On 3/14/12 5:12 AM, "Steve Kirkby" wrote:
> Shawn Bakhtiar said:
>
> "It's [Clam] not just good, it's great ".
>
> I am sure it is. But it is only for highly technically competent people. (And
> there is nothing wrong in that.)
>
> "Yes, the average consumer should not be concerned with such s
At 08:50 AM 3/14/2012, Al Varnell wrote:
On 3/14/12 5:12 AM, "Steve Kirkby" wrote:
>
> Exactly. But I dropped into Clam from a recommendation on the Apple
> discussions Group. There are some highly technical people there but in the
> post the recommender was addressing average uses of the Mac.
>
On 03/14/2012 05:12 AM, Steve Kirkby wrote:
Shawn Bakhtiar said:
"It's [Clam] not just good, it's great ".
I am sure it is. But it is only for highly technically competent people. (And
there is nothing wrong in that.)
"Yes, the average consumer should not be concerned with such stuff, but if
20 matches
Mail list logo
