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
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 Developer - GeCAD The Software Company
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
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#microsoft
Or any other mirror
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
You can try the McAfee anti-virus 4.14.0
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 copy, it's
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 sophos , any other is there
thank regards
Prashant Desai
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.
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 need.
Charles
--
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 wastes the
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 information you need.
Charles
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, 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
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(s) X wrote
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 a
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 well as a few
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 consequences.
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 help? It
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 because
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
double clicking
on binary attachments. So arguments I voice are ignored.
--
Michael Boyiazis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail Architect, NetZero, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Bradford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
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 purely
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 bored
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
* [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 trivially
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 which
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
Thus spake Milen Petrinski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
People will allways use Windows, no matter what the sysadmins say.
Then ignore that minority group and don't prolong their agony by giving
them access to non-solutions like virus scanners.
The "lusers" want buttons, F1 and plug'n'play.
Buttons
* Milen Petrinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Remeber ILOVEYOU? No virus scanner on earth would have prevented that.
from my logs
Sanitizing MIME attachment headers in "I love you" from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to xx msgid=snip
Trapped poisoned executable "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs".
We didn't get a single infected machine. The mail
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
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 blah blah
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
* John W Lemons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Remeber ILOVEYOU? No virus scanner on earth would have prevented
that.
from my logs Sanitizing MIME attachment headers in "I love you" from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to xx msgid=snip
Trapped poisoned executable "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs".
We
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 might
* 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 becoming a
from my logs Sanitizing MIME attachment headers in "I love you" from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to xx msgid=snip
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
* 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
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 this case
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 if a person needs antivirus
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.
True enough, but shouldn't the cost/benefit be calculated on a case by case
basis? I can see how in some cases it would be worth it, and in
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
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 attachment. Anomy
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 blah blah blah.
The old lady who
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 exploit
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
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 is
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 knew
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
before
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
before
d 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 for the messa
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
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
[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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Based on the fact
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 out
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
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 virus
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
[Sorry, John, for that immediate send -- I *wish* Eudora didn't map
CTRL-E 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.
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 be
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 flamed by everyone for asking a "obvious"
* 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 archives?
--
Robin S. Socha
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 security problems.
Felix
Like Felix I'm skeptical about the value of general anti-virii programs
running as gatekeepers on Linux servers.
However, I have found AMaViS (A Mail Virus Scanner;
http://amavis.org ) very useful for filtering out e-mail viruses, a very
annoying and prominant subgroup of viruses.
AMaVis
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 and DoSses your
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".
A
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
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 ZIP
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:
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%
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:47:53AM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
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 be against it.
Antivirus,
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 be against it.
Nothing is free. All that is
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
On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 01:24:14PM -0400, Steve Peace wrote:
Does anybody know of a good antivirus package I can put on my RedHat 6.1,
Qmail 1.03 server that may possibly be able to scan incoming messages for
viruses? If not I guess I will have to trust my users to not download and
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
There are different ways to do so.. have a look at
http://satan.oih.rwth-aachen.de/AMaViS/amavis.html
hth
Anton Pirnat
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Am 27.04.00, 14:24:14, schrieb "Steve Peace" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
zum Thema AntiVirus packages.:
Does anybody know of a good antivirus package I
our site use scan4virus by jason haar. You can give a try at
http://www.geocities.com/jhaar/scan4virus/
On 27 Apr 00, at 13:24, Steve Peace hit the keyboard :
Does anybody know of a good antivirus package I can put on my RedHat 6.1,
Qmail 1.03 server that may possibly be able to scan
77 matches
Mail list logo
