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.
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.
-- Forwarded Message --
Status: U
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from pop.earthlink.net [209.86.93.204]
by localhost with
14 matches
Mail list logo
