On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 04:19:53PM -0500, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
>I'm having lots of customers call up saying their clamd is segfaulting..
>installations that have been around for many months (0.80) and all of a
>sudden, later in the week last week.. everyone's been having problems with
>clamd se
Pete Hicks wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 04:19:53PM -0500, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
I'm having lots of customers call up saying their clamd is segfaulting..
installations that have been around for many months (0.80) and all of a
sudden, later in the week last week.. everyone's been having problems
Upgrading didn't seem to help me, though maybe it slowed down the
crash rate - I just had another crash about an hour ago. I'm getting
slammed at postmaster each time it crashes. This was in the logs from
the latest crash:
May 2 14:22:24 smtp clamav-milter[153]: ClamAv: setsockopt() failed
(Inv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rick Macdougall wrote:
|
|
| Pete Hicks wrote:
|
|> On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 04:19:53PM -0500, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
|>
|>> I'm having lots of customers call up saying their clamd is
|>> segfaulting.. installations that have been around for many
|>> mont
On Monday 02 May 2005 23:08, Pete 'Wolfy' Hanson wrote:
> Upgrading didn't seem to help me, though maybe it slowed down the
> crash rate - I just had another crash about an hour ago. I'm getting
> slammed at postmaster each time it crashes. This was in the logs from
> the latest crash:
>
> May
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 16:19 -0500, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> I'm having lots of customers call up saying their clamd is segfaulting..
> installations that have been around for many months (0.80) and all of a
> sudden, later in the week last week.. everyone's been having problems with
> clamd segfa
Trog wrote:
Several. We don't release software updates for our own amusement. A
responsible system admin should always look to upgrade to the current
stable version as soon as possible after it is released.
The responsible admin will evaluate the pros and cons of _any_ software
release and choose
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:23 -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
> The responsible admin will evaluate the pros and cons of _any_ software
> release and choose what is best for his/her environment. The difficultly
> with any project in development, including ClamAV, is that "current" and
> "stable" do no
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 13:23, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Now that we have reports of spam crashing v0.80, it is time for me to
> test v0.84.
Your use the the word "now" makes it sound like this is something new only
recently
discovered. You seem to be ignoring the fact that this was known about, and
On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:23:38 -0400
Mike Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that we have reports of spam crashing v0.80, it is time for me to
> test v0.84.
If I was your boss, I'd fire you. Admins who wait with an update until
a software (especially a mission critical one responsible for e-
Nigel Horne wrote:
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 13:23, Mike Lambert wrote:
Now that we have reports of spam crashing v0.80, it is time for me to
test v0.84.
Your use the the word "now" makes it sound like this is something new only recently
discovered.
Nope, just new to me. I read today's posts as thou
Trog wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:23 -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
The responsible admin will evaluate the pros and cons of _any_ software
release and choose what is best for his/her environment. The difficultly
with any project in development, including ClamAV, is that "current" and
"stable" d
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lambert wrote:
> I meant the most stable before 0.84. Sorry for the confusion.
If you had stability problem on 0.81, 0.82, and 0.83 -- did you post them ?
Sorry if I missed it, but I don't recall seeing anything posted about
stability problems on those version.
Our ow
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:23:38 -0400
Mike Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now that we have reports of spam crashing v0.80, it is time for me to
test v0.84.
If I was your boss, I'd fire you. Admins who wait with an update until
a software (especially a mission critical one res
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 08:23 am, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mike Lambert wrote:
> > I meant the most stable before 0.84. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> If you had stability problem on 0.81, 0.82, and 0.83 -- did you post them ?
> Sorry if I missed it, but I don't recall seei
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Tomasz Kojm
> Sent: dinsdag 3 mei 2005 14:51
> To: ClamAV users ML
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] clamd segfaulting as of about thursday
>
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 08:23:38 -
>>>Now that we have reports of spam crashing v0.80, it is time
>>>for me to test v0.84.
>>
>>If I was your boss, I'd fire you. Admins who wait with an update until
>>a software (especially a mission critical one responsible for e-mail
>>delivery) starts crashing are not worth any money.
>
>
> Tha
On 5/2/05, Nigel Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2005 23:08, Pete 'Wolfy' Hanson wrote:
> > slammed at postmaster each time it crashes. This was in the logs from
> > the latest crash:
> >
> > May 2 14:22:24 smtp clamav-milter[153]: ClamAv: setsockopt() failed
> > (Invalid argu
> Somehow or other, that -B flag is being set when clamav-milter
> restarts following the reload.
FWIW, the problem is happening on both Solaris 2.8 and 2.6 systems (on
the 2.8 system, there are no logged error messages - the milter simply
stops responding, and everything needs to be restarted).
Mark wrote:
> > If I was your boss, I'd fire you. Admins who wait with an update until
> > a software (especially a mission critical one responsible for e-mail
> > delivery) starts crashing are not worth any money.
> That seems a bit harsh.
Actually, I was thinking that Tomasz ought to stop bei
20 matches
Mail list logo
