* Mihai Serban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010625 11:33]:
> Dear Qmail users,
[snip]
Dear Mihai,
Please add me to your list of people who will never use your service or
software. Your advertisement is NOT appreciated on this mailing list,
certainly not by me and likely not by others.
/pg
--
Peter Gre
Dear Qmail users,
GeCAD Software is glad to announce you the last release of
RAV AntiVirus for Mail Servers: http://www.ravantivirus.com
The product is available for: Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD.
Subject:
1. RAV AntiVirus for Mail Servers new release
2. Protect critical company data!
3. Improve
> hi all
>
> how do i integrate antivirus scanner for incoming and out going mails.
>
> i have qmail+vpopmail+mysql
>
> any help will appriciate
http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net
All information you need should be there.
Cheers
Lars Hansson
Technical Consultant
Unet Inc., Philippines
http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net
Jeff Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:59 PM 6/14/01 +0530, you wrote:
hi
all
how do i integrate antivirus scanner for
incoming and out going mails.
i have qmail+vpopmail+mysql
any help will
appriciate
hi all
how do i integrate antivirus scanner for incoming
and out going mails.
i have qmail+vpopmail+mysql
any help will appriciate
Hi,
RAV AntiVirus can help you:
http://www.ravantivirus.com
regards,
Mihai
GARGIULO Eduardo INGDESI wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Where can I find information about antivirus for qmail
> (scan incomming and outgoing messages)?
>
> thanks
>
> --yapedu
--
Software Dev
The best antivirus for qmail is AVP www.avp.ru
D. Riera
GARGIULO Eduardo INGDESI wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>Where can I find information about antivirus for qmail
>(scan incomming and outgoing messages)?
>
>thanks
>
>--yapedu
>
At 14:28 05.06.01 -0300, GARGIULO Eduardo INGDESI wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>Where can I find information about antivirus for qmail
>(scan incomming and outgoing messages)?
>
>thanks
>
>--yapedu
Try http://www.math.ntnu.no/mirror/www.qmail.org/top.html#micros
http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/
-Original Message-
From: GARGIULO Eduardo INGDESI [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:29 PM
To: qmail list
Subject: AntiVirus
Hi all.
Where can I find information about antivirus for qmail
(scan incomming and outgoing
Hi all.
Where can I find information about antivirus for qmail
(scan incomming and outgoing messages)?
thanks
--yapedu
> Are there any documents describing the process step-by-step ? (I mean
> AMaVis and qmail integration).
>
> Cheers,
> Lukasz
>
The AMaVis anti-virus documentations are very complete, describes all the steps
for qmail integration and other MTAs.
Check it out at http://amavis.org
B.R.
-=-=-=
Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga wrote:
>
> > hello friends
> >
> > can some one please tell me which antivirus software is available for
> > AIX platform
> > and can be used with Amavis and qmail running on IBM AIX 4.3.3.
> >
> > i know only one s
> thanks a lot Augusto
>
> but is that Anti-virus softwrae available for AIX 4.3.3 platform ,
>
>
> thnaks & regards
> Prashant Desai
>
Sure ;)
And also, Linux, *BSD, Solaris, BSDi, SunOS and any other UNIX relevant system.
Get a evaluation version on McAfee web site (I suggest to buy a co
> hello friends
>
> can some one please tell me which antivirus software is available for
> AIX platform
> and can be used with Amavis and qmail running on IBM AIX 4.3.3.
>
> i know only one sophos , any other is there
>
> thank & regards
> Prashant
hello friends
can some one please tell me which antivirus software is available for
AIX platform
and can be used with Amavis and qmail running on IBM AIX 4.3.3.
i know only one sophos , any other is there
thank & regards
Prashant Desai
Dear all,
I am loooking for an antivirus which can scan as
well as clean my all incoming and outgoing mails,
i am allready using amavis with mcafee. But with
amavis only scaning is happening not cleaning . And i am looking for cleaning
option .
Can you pl suggest me any ? Or is it
7:02
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: antivirus
Ciprian Iftode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need an antivirus who works with qmail in order to scan all the emails
> that are going thru my server, incoming and outgoing. Do you know such
> thing?
www.qmail.org has the
Ciprian Iftode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, could you recommend me some antivirus...
I already answered your question earlier today. Please re-read it, and then
go read what I told you to read in that message. Your answer is there.
Re-posting the question with no changes w
Ciprian Iftode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need an antivirus who works with qmail in order to scan all the emails
> that are going thru my server, incoming and outgoing. Do you know such
> thing?
www.qmail.org has the information you
Hi, could you recommend me some antivirus who will work with
qmail in order to scan all emails that are going thru the server, incoming
and outgoing. Freeware if is posible.
10x
Ciprian Iftode,
Professional Systems Romania
str. Moara de Foc, nr.35, et.5
Hi,
I need an antivirus who works with qmail in order to scan all the emails
that are going thru my server, incoming and outgoing. Do you know such
thing? If posible to be freeware and up to date.
Ciprian Iftode,
Professional Systems Romania
str. Moara de Foc, nr.35, et
Dear Linux users,
We are happy to announce that we have just issued a RAV AntiVirus
version for Qmail. This beta version is now available on
our site http://www.ravantivirus.com - free download, and we would
really appreciate your feedback if you would take a time to install and
run it!
Thank
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 03:59:29PM +0100, Tore Micaelsen wrote:
> Can anyone point me in the right direction?
This should be easy to add to qmail-scanner... (perl)
It's even planed AFAIK.
Olivier
--
_
Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROT
Have installed amavis with the fsav anti virus engine...works great. But
would like to install this on a server with alot of virtual domains, and
what im looking for is the possibility to specify which of the domains i
want to scan for. ( Due to the heavy load of scanning all of them, and
because
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> So you are saying, the job of the system adminsitrator doesn't include
> a) removing your www permissions because you remind him he has hairy legs
Real BOFHs remove permissions because they feel like it, not because
there actually is a reason.
Lipscomb, Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 5 December 2000 at 09:20:05 -0500
>
> >
> > Al, please don't talk about stuff you don't understand.
> > It's not a "product", it's free software.
> >
> Wrong. Talked to an attorney last night who specializes in this kind of
> litigation. Person(
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Nathan J. Mehl wrote:
> Um, ISTR that the Morris Worm did a pretty good job of spreading over
> heterogeneous UNIX-like systems over a variety of transports.
The worm did not infect more than 10 % of all hosts. This estimate is
based on the extrapolation of the number of infe
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:58:41AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> c) reminding users that, like the Canadian Inuit, who have 500 different
> words for "snow", that the German language has 1000 different words for
> "stupid".
it hasn't, but it has thousands of ways to express ones stupidness.
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 06:54:01PM -0500,
"Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Um, ISTR that the Morris Worm did a pretty good job of spreading over
> heterogeneous UNIX-like systems over a variety of transports. And
> despite his father's connections, RTM himself was basically a bo
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > A good attack agent could spread itself using SMTP, RPC, FTP and IRC all at
> > the same time.
>
> Yeah, and pigs can fly.
>
> The only people who would have a reason to spend the massive amounts of
> time and money on this p
ED]
> Subject: Re: AntiVirus!
>
>
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:18:33 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> > By the way, about the discussion about the net worth of
> virus scanners,
> > please have a look a the email I just got (no, I am not
> making this up):
>
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:18:33 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> By the way, about the discussion about the net worth of virus scanners,
> please have a look a the email I just got (no, I am not making this up):
I can verify this---I too received a similar bounce from their group
and sent them ba
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> People will only notice the system administrator when something is broken.
> So, the job of the system administrator is to be invisible.
So you are saying, the job of the system adminsitrator doesn't include
a) removing your www permissions becaus
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 04:18:52PM -0600,
"John W. Lemons III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with this as well, but certainly you can see that there is some
> level
> of benefit from a two (or three) tier approach to virus
> detection/prevention.
How does doing virus checking twice he
Thus spake Milen Petrinski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > This is the biggest lie of computing: that there is no choice.
> > Everyone has hundreds of options, but the American culture apparently
> > revolves around taking the wrong choice, blaming it on circumstances and
> > whining about the consequenc
Thus spake Stuart Young ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > I disagree with the assertion that virus scanners are non-solutions. On > > >
>the mail servers I run, I have installed some simple virus scanning
> > > software, and it has, up to now, filtered out lots of incoming virii and
> > > trojans, as w
>
> Al, please don't talk about stuff you don't understand.
> It's not a "product", it's free software.
>
Wrong. Talked to an attorney last night who specializes in this kind of
litigation. Person(s) X wrote code and person Y suffered a loss as a result
of using that code. It does not matter if
>
> This is the biggest lie of computing: that there is no choice.
> Everyone has hundreds of options, but the American culture apparently
> revolves around taking the wrong choice, blaming it on circumstances and
> whining about the consequences.
>
Just an example:
You are installing a new mail
[Sorry, John, for that immediate send -- I *wish* Eudora didn't map
to that - Unix's "end of line" keystroke habit bites me in the
backside again...]
On or about 09:58 PM 12/4/00 -0600, John W. Lemons III was caught in a dark
alley speaking these words:
>>I do too, but only to a point. Automat
>I do too, but only to a point. Automated virus scanners reduce but do
>not eliminate the risk of infection from viruses.
>
>However, virus scanners are NOT a solution. They are a band-aid to
>aleviate the symptoms of the problem. The problem is a lack of
>protection in the software (OS and app
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 08:25:05PM +, Uwe Ohse wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:22:43PM -0600, John W. Lemons III wrote:
> > >Then ignore that minority group and don't prolong their agony by giving
> > >them access to non-solutions like virus scanners.
> > I disagree with the assertion that
I was speaking of the kinds of files we filter in and out. Sorry we are
having such a hard time communicating.
-Original Message-
From: Felix von Leitner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 7:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AntiVirus!
Thus spake John W
At 12:46 AM 5/12/00 +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
>Thus spake John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I disagree with the assertion that virus scanners are non-solutions. On
> > the mail servers I run, I have installed some simple virus scanning
> > software, and it has, up to now, filtered
l Boyiazis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
> -Original Message-
> From: Felix von Leitner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 5:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: AntiVirus!
>
>
> Thus spake John W. Lemons III ([EM
>It's been awhile since I've posted to this list, but I must point out
>that this "watch and wait" vigil-style virii detection isn't really
>all that useful when you're asleep and wake up the next morning to
>your staff executing a script that is wiping the hard drives of every
>machine on your ne
>John, you just shot yourself in both feet with an elephant gun. Your
>little sob story /proved/ that virus scanners are snakeoil.
I fail to see how that "shot me in the foot". One of the features of our
virus scanning procedure is the ability to filter out suspect files. I
think you are a bit
contains a disallowed subject line, text message, a chain or hoax letter.
Message: B000ef930.0001.mml
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AntiVirus!
If you believe the above e-mail to be business related please
contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to arrange
Quoting John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >Now that is impressive. You knew and could detect iloveyou before
> >all the other people in the world?
>
> I was awake that night as the reports started coming accross the
> wire. It was trivial to modify my filters and scan the mail boxes
> b
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Now that is impressive. You knew and could detect iloveyou before
>>all the other people in the world?
>
> I was awake that night as the reports started coming accross the
> wire. It was trivial to modify my filters and scan the mail boxes
> befor
> It was sent to a holding directory and a messages was sent to the admin
> account alerting him of the incident. In this case it was so well known
it
> and the others received by that time were simply deleted rather than
> analyzed, and the senders were notified.
>Now that is impressive.
>You k
>Based on the fact that your virus scanner detected a few outgoing virii,
>you assert not only that it has detected all of them.
Please quote where I indicated perfection.
>And the role of your IT department is to walk around and clean up virus
>infections.
One of the many roles of the IT staff
Thus spake Lipscomb, Al ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> See the words "TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW". There are lots of
> places in this world where the law says the person who wrote it or the
> person who gave it to you can be held liable no matter what they want to
> disclaim. It depends on
Thus spake Lipscomb, Al ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > As long as people run Windows, there will be a virus and
> > trojan problem.
> And Unix is immune to Trojans and worms?
Unix is so heterogenous that it is next to impossible to write a
portable exploit. It will of course always be possible to expl
Thus spake Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I find it astonishing that people don't sue Microsoft for this.
> > A whole industry thrives on Microsoft's bad code quality.
> They can't sue microsoft. They "accepted" a license that says Microsoft
> isn't responsible .
The old lady who microwav
Thus spake John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Trapped poisoned executable "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs".
> > We didn't get a single infected machine. The mail server stopped all
> > of them.
> >True. But you owe the awestruck audience an explanation of what happened
> >to that attachme
Thus spake John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I disagree with the assertion that virus scanners are non-solutions. On the
> mail servers I run, I have installed some simple virus scanning software,
> and it has, up to now, filtered out lots of incoming virii and trojans, as
> well as a few
it would be worth it, and in others it
would not be worth it.
>Generally if a person needs antivirus protection for a machine, they really
>need it for more than email that isn't encrypted. The right place to run it
>is on their machine, not on the central mail server. The issue
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 02:42:25PM -0600,
"John W. Lemons III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That is true enough, but if the virus can be stopped some of the time before
> it even reaches the end user, why not?
>
Because there are costs in doing so.
Generally
Quoting John W. Lemons III ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >True. But you owe the awestruck audience an explanation of what happened
> >to that attachment. Anomy is cool, but ... ;-)
>
> It was sent to a holding directory and a messages was sent to the admin
> account alerting him of the incident. In thi
> * Lipscomb, Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I find it astonishing that people don't sue Microsoft for this. A
> >> whole industry thrives on Microsoft's bad code quality.
> >>
>
> > Be careful what you wish for. Once the lawsuits start the
> Open Source
> > world is getting deeper poc
> Sanitizing MIME attachment headers in "I love you" from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to xx msgid=
> Trapped poisoned executable "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs".
> We didn't get a single infected machine. The mail server stopped all
> of them.
>True. But you owe the awestruck audience an explanat
* Lipscomb, Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I find it astonishing that people don't sue Microsoft for this. A
>> whole industry thrives on Microsoft's bad code quality.
>>
> Be careful what you wish for. Once the lawsuits start the Open Source
> world is getting deeper pockets and therefore b
>wrong. You pretend to provide security, but in reality you still allow
>your clients to behave stupid and catch a virus.
>If that happened on an important machine - with
>valuable data - they shouldn't be allowed to do so, instead they
>should be fired, possibly together with the user.
>A virus m
* John W Lemons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Remeber ILOVEYOU? No virus scanner on earth would have prevented
>> that.
> Sanitizing MIME attachment headers in "I love you" from
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to xx msgid=
> Trapped poisoned executable "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs".
> We didn't ge
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:22:43PM -0600, John W. Lemons III wrote:
> >Then ignore that minority group and don't prolong their agony by giving
> >them access to non-solutions like virus scanners.
>
> I disagree with the assertion that virus scanners are non-solutions.
me too.
> On the
> mail
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:59:54PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> I find it astonishing that people don't sue Microsoft for this.
> A whole industry thrives on Microsoft's bad code quality.
They can't sue microsoft. They "accepted" a license that says Microsoft
isn't responsible .
--Adam
--
>
> As long as people run Windows, there will be a virus and
> trojan problem.
>
And Unix is immune to Trojans and worms?
With attacks getting more sophisticated I can see a day when an email would
arrive and the MUA would be attacked via a buffer overflow in the header,
use a local host exp
>Remeber ILOVEYOU? No virus scanner on earth would have prevented that.
Sanitizing MIME attachment headers in "I love you" from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to xx msgid=
Trapped poisoned executable "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs".
We didn't get a single infected machine. The mail server stopped al
g
an ever stronger foothold in the server market. The next big thing will
be "thin clients" or WebTV or whatever - client/server in any
case. There *will* be choice.
> The man askes for an antivirus softwere, not for compare between OSes.
The man is perpetuating a problem, not trying
in any previous version of
windows that I have ever used, where plug-n-pray was the rule)
> The problem is not the OS security - most of the times there is no
> choise. The man askes for an antivirus softwere, not for compare
> between OSes.
>Everyone has hundreds of options, but the
s, F1 and plug'n'play.
Buttons and F1 they can have on all platforms, plug and play has never
been farther away from reality as on Windows.
> The problem is not the OS security - most of the times there is no
> choise. The man askes for an antivirus softwere, not for compare
> b
users" want buttons, F1 and plug'n'play.
The problem is not the OS security - most of the times there is no choise.
The man askes for an antivirus softwere, not for compare between OSes.
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I've been thinking of a scheme in which attachments of certain
> "dangerous" types get mangled, such that the filenames or types
> are intentionally misdeclared. So the user ends up with a plain
> base64 text file, which is meaningless, but whic
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been thinking of a scheme in which attachments of certain
> "dangerous" types get mangled, such that the filenames or types are
> intentionally misdeclared. So the user ends up with a plain base64
> text file, which is meaningless, but which he can triviall
Matt Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > If running a virus scanner would be free (i.e. does not reduce security,
: > does not eat up CPU time on the email server, does not use memory, does
: > not cost time and money to maintain) then I would not
>
> 2) The actual virus code may be hidden inside a wide number of
> packaging schemes; different mime encodings, compression formats,
> encryption formats, etc. It is impossible for a virus scanner to be
> able to read them all. Thus some known viruses can slip by because
> they're inside an u
e. All that is possible is that the cost is less than
the benefits.
> But virus scanners are a marketing vehicle for a whole industry that
> did nothing to prevent any virus I have ever seen anyone close to me me
> have.
I used to work for an antivirus company (no longer; figured there
gainst it.
Antivirus, not **antigravity**. ;^>
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/
Content management
Thus spake Matt Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Therefore, signature based scanners CANNOT be a 100% reliable method
> for preventing viruses.
Plus, they are a security risk in themselves.
And, they normally even cost money.
> Felix, you seem to be of the opinion that anything less than 100%
> effe
Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Signature based detection can never catch current virii.
Either
s/current/new/
or
s/catch/reliably catch/
There can be no argument that a signature based virus scanner can
catch SOME viruses. The question is how reliably.
The two issues are:
>>
> Don't know if this is a urban legend or if it really exists, but a
> friend told me about a ZIP file called 42.ZIP (maybe because it is
> 42 KB in size) which - as I heard - is currently floating around. This
> is not a virus but a DoS attack against virus scanners.
>
> If you unzip this
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 02:24:03PM -0500, Jerry Keene wrote:
> very useful for filtering out e-mail viruses
Don't know if this is a urban legend or if it really exists, but a
friend told me about a ZIP file called 42.ZIP (maybe because it is
42 KB in size) which - as I heard - is currently floa
> Like Felix I'm skeptical about the value of general
> anti-virii programs
> running as gatekeepers on Linux servers.
>
Check out http://www.vmyths.com
A lot of the most "deadly" attacks could have been stopped dead with simple
processes that looked for methods and not specific "signatures".
Thus spake Jerry Keene ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Like Felix I'm skeptical about the value of general anti-virii programs
> running as gatekeepers on Linux servers.
Please email yourself an email with http://www.fefe.de/antivirus/42.zip
as attachment. Either your antivirus is thorough
ake Visar Emini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I have qmail & vpopmail running on Linux machine and I was thinking
> > on installing an antivirus on my mailserver, does anyone have any
> > suggestions about this issue?!
>
> Forget it.
> Anti virii don't wo
Thus spake Visar Emini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I have qmail & vpopmail running on Linux machine and I was thinking on
> installing an antivirus on my mailserver, does anyone have any suggestions
> about this issue?!
Forget it.
Anti virii don't work.
They also introduce new
* Visar Emini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have qmail & vpopmail running on Linux machine and I was thinking
> on installing an antivirus on my mailserver, does anyone have any
> suggestions about this issue?!
http://qmail.org/ - how many seconds did you search the arc
Visar Emini wrote:
> Hi everybody...
>
> I have qmail & vpopmail running on Linux machine and I was thinking on
> installing an antivirus on my mailserver, does anyone have any suggestions
> about this issue?!
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> V.
Before you get
Hi everybody...
I have qmail & vpopmail running on Linux machine and I was thinking on
installing an antivirus on my mailserver, does anyone have any suggestions
about this issue?!
Thanks for your time
V.
"Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Unfortunately avp is not free, the license-fee for a (linux)
> > mail-server is about 100$/year.
>
> this would be acceptable. Are the updates automatic, or do they
> have to be done manualy ? (wget something, for example).
How should the updates be
Thanks Martin for your answer.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 10:47:33AM +0200, Martin Lesser wrote:
> Your problems seem to result of a perhaps misconfigured AvpLinux or
> AvpDaemon. If you use the trial-version of avp you may run into problems
> due to the "semi"-automatic tests done by avp.
>
> Unfo
Rainer Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I use AvpDaemon and it works very well after a little patch of
> > sub-avp.pl
> Martin, you should send it to Jason :)
Done - some weeks ago :-) The patch concerned the behaviour of
AvpDaemon, not AvpLinux.
> > Your problems seem to result of a perhap
ation, please feel free to contact me :-)
cheers, Rainer
--
Rainer Link | Member of Virus Help Munich (www.vhm.haitec.de)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Developer of A Mail Virus Scanner (amavis.org)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Founder of Linux AntiVirus Project (lavp.sourceforge.net)
"Olivier M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just tried to use it with AVP and sweep : both returns a
>X-Qmail-Scanner-0.90: corrupt scanner/resource problems - exit status 256
> in the logfile...
>
> If you are using qmail-scanner, could you please tell me which
> program is working well, an
Hello,
I'm currently trying to install qmail-scanner (antivirus)
on a server: basic installation seems to work well. Now I
need a virus scanner : on the homepage <http://qmail-scanner.sourceforge.net/>
the following are listed:
* Trend's Virus scanner
* Sophos's
Luis Bezerra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone uses AVP antivirus?
Yep - it scans eMail on several qmail-servers I installed by using
http://www.amavis.org with the patch by Rainer Link.
> if yes, could you help me to install this software?
What's your problem?
Luis Bezerra wrote:
Hello!
> Has anyone uses AVP antivirus?
I'm using AVP/Linux, yes
> if yes, could you help me to install this software?
What's your problem? Why don't you ask the support guys from
KasperskyLabs?
best regards,
Rainer Link
--
Rainer Link | Member
Hello averyone:
In this list,
Exists anyone that uses qmail server with 5 mailboxes and Antivirus?
Thanks in advance
Luis
Hello averyone:
Has anyone uses AVP antivirus?
if yes, could you help me to install this software?
regards
Luis Bezerra
Anton Pirnat wrote:
> There are different ways to do so.. have a look at
> http://satan.oih.rwth-aachen.de/AMaViS/amavis.html
Please use either AMaViS-0.2.0-pre6-clm-rl-8 or AMaViS-Perl-5, which can
be found at http://www.unixzone.com/virus/
HTH
best regards,
Rainer Link
(Member of AMaViS Dev
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
