Friday, August 19, 2005 7:43 AM
> To: 'Herb Martin'
> Subject: RE: Trojan infected FN
>
> Hello,
>
> Could you please post the list to the mailinglist or me personally
>
> With kind regards,
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Maurice Lucas
> TAOS-IT
&
On Sunday 21 August 2005 01:53 am, jdow wrote:
> > Wow! That was as easy to setup as falling off a log. Thanks for the tip
> > Matt,
> > works great.
>
> I noticed the ClamAV scan almost doubles the time for an SA scan on
> virus free mail. On a virus sample I happen to have around it goes uo
> fr
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday 19 August 2005 09:54 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
>Although this is a standalone box with no windows on it at all, guess I
> could set one up anyway.
Setting up clamav is quick and easy, and best of all, free.
If you've got SA 3.x, there's even a clamAV
On Friday 19 August 2005 09:54 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
> >Although this is a standalone box with no windows on it at all, guess I
> > could set one up anyway.
>
> Setting up clamav is quick and easy, and best of all, free.
>
> If you've got SA 3.x, there's even a clamAV plugin so you can get SA to
On Friday 19 August 2005 09:54 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
> Setting up clamav is quick and easy, and best of all, free.
>
> If you've got SA 3.x, there's even a clamAV plugin so you can get SA to
> call clamav while it's scanning for spam.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ClamAVPlugin
>
> I
Loren Wilton wrote:
>>The main reason is adding rules to catch or not catch viruses would wind
>
> up
>
>>diluting the scores of the spam rules. This would weaken SA's spam
>>detecting abilities, in order to grant it rather lame virus catching
>
> abilities.
>
> Hum. Interesting philosophy, bu
> The main reason is adding rules to catch or not catch viruses would wind
up
> diluting the scores of the spam rules. This would weaken SA's spam
> detecting abilities, in order to grant it rather lame virus catching
abilities.
Hum. Interesting philosophy, but I don't know that it is actually tr
At 07:16 AM 8/19/2005, Chris wrote:
On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:46 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
> >Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the other two
> > as spam, this one slipped through just a bit under the wire.
>
> Spamassassin doesn't
I got spam like that (posted that here some time ago), all with the
specific port= helo= characteristic in the header.
Since there was no FP during testing I now discard them all in Postfix with:
/^Received: from \[[0-9\.]*\] \(port\=[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]
helo\=\[[a-zA-Z]*\]\)/ DISCARD
Regards
Menn
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:46 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
> > >Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the
> > >other two as spam, this one slipped through just a b
On Thursday 18 August 2005 11:46 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
> >Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the other two
> > as spam, this one slipped through just a bit under the wire.
>
> Spamassassin doesn't try to detect viruses. That's what vir
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the other
two as
spam, this one slipped through just a bit under the wire.
Spamassassin doesn't try to detect viruses. That's what virus scanners
are best at.
I've been s
At 11:20 PM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
Got three of these tonight with the same trojan, SA detected the other two as
spam, this one slipped through just a bit under the wire.
Spamassassin doesn't try to detect viruses. That's what virus scanners are
best at.
13 matches
Mail list logo