From: Taylor, Grant
Date: 2006-08-04 19:01:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Milter-ClamC "450 4.7.1 anti-virus session write
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
Anthony Howe wrote:
> Have you checked if the clamd process has died? I've seen it die
> sometimes after a freshclam update.
*nod* I do not have any thing restarting the clamd daemon. (I have
started it by hand for now.) Messages will pass through milter-clamc just
fine, and then it will fail with said error and then immediately succeed
again. Seeing as how nothing is respawning clamd, I don't think that it
died on me.
> Anyway, I've recently changed this in milter-clamc for the next release:
> ! Accept the message in the event of an clamd socket error,
> instead of temporaily rejecting the mail. Better to let
> the mail keep flowing. Sometimes clamd disappears.
Will this be an option? We have as a company chosen that it is better to
TempFail email messages when we can not virus scan them.
> Possibly. Never thought of that. You try setting
> about 64KB smaller than clamd's max size and see if milter-clamc is more
> graceful when it knows to limit message size. Note that because of how
> the sendmail / milter passes date, clamd-max-size is convert into max.
> number of 64KB chunks rounded up. So if you specify clamd-max-size=32,
> it would actual do 64KB.
I'm willing to do such, but I'm not sure if that is a milter setting or a
clamd setting. Will you throw me a bone please? If not, I'll do some more
Grant. . . .
Copyright 2009, 2012 by SnertSoft. All rights reserved.