spamassassin / clamav iworx repository

Hello,

I saw that spamassassin 3.02 and clamav 0.81 are available from the iworx yum repository.

I’ve installed them, upgrading my old install, and everything is worjing fine


yum install clamav
yum install SpamAssassin

h?h? that smells good the new interworx version :-p

Thanks you :slight_smile:

Pascal

Indeed, we’re gearing up Pascal.

I should note that those packages aren’t built for all the platforms just yet.

Paul

You cheated Pascal ;). wrist smacking time!

Chris

haha :-p I follow up very closely your job. Too much Waiting for it :-p

PAscal

I have to confess that after seeing this I checked into it and installed the ones for CentOS. I haven’t done anything but install them (no configuration) but I have noticed that none of the email I’ve gotten since last night has had viruses in it and some of my accounts get dozens of virus infected email a day. Good job, guys.

We are close, we’ve been testing internally on our shared servers for over a week and it’s looking good. Installing the RPMs won’t hurt anything but they won’t help either as I belive the defaults are “off” for everything.

Chris

I also have to confess (unfortunately) that it is most certainly a coincidence, since there is some configuration that needs to happen (which the InterWorx update will take care of) before incoming mail is virus scanned. :slight_smile:

Paul

Really? That IS odd. I downloaded over a hundred messages today from addresses that are normally filled with SPAM and viruses. Not a one.

Anyway anybody know what THIS means:

[root@centos root]# service smtp reload
svc: warning: unable to chdir to /var/qmail/supervise/send: file does not exist
Sending HUP signal to qmail-send: [ OK ]

Obviously it reloaded (and restarted) fine, but I was just wondering. Right now I am having a problen dowloading email (probably linked to the intermitent problems I’ve been having with DNS as we talked about in another thread). And I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t a problem server side.

Actually it looks like there’s a problem with the reload and doqueue smtp init functions.

Instead of using reload you can do restart safely, or, you can edit the /etc/rc.d/init.d/smtp file, and change references to /var/qmail/supervise/send to /service/send

Downloading mail would probably involve pop3 or imap, depending on which protocol you’re using to get your mail. I’d check the /var/log/pop3/current file for errors (or /var/log/imap4/current).

Paul

Restarting works fine, that’s why I wasn’t too woried about the above.

Here’s what I got from the pop log:

0:110 modem0404-cp-tnt-d1.cpinternet.com:216.251.182.150::4321
@40000000420698a0066c4b74 tcpserver: ok 24231 unknown.sagonet.net:207.150.160.100:110 modem0404-cp-tnt-d1.cpinternet.com:216.251.182.150::4298
@40000000420698a00691c91c tcpserver: ok 24233 unknown.sagonet.net:207.150.160.100:110 modem0404-cp-tnt-d1.cpinternet.com:216.251.182.150::4303
@40000000420698a006eb241c tcpserver: ok 24239 unknown.sagonet.net:207.150.160.103:110 modem0404-cp-tnt-d1.cpinternet.com:216.251.182.150::4319
@40000000420698a2003da734 tcpserver: end 24232 status 256
@40000000420698a2003dbabc tcpserver: status: 9/200
@40000000420698a20a163104 tcpserver: end 24234 status 256
@40000000420698a20a1707dc tcpserver: status: 8/200
@40000000420698a20a1e3f84 tcpserver: end 24236 status 256
@40000000420698a20a1ed7dc tcpserver: status: 7/200
@40000000420698a20a26136c tcpserver: end 24233 status 256
@40000000420698a20a26afac tcpserver: status: 6/200
@40000000420698a20d9c4a84 tcpserver: end 24237 status 256
@40000000420698a20d9d0604 tcpserver: status: 5/200
@40000000420698a20da35b1c tcpserver: end 24238 status 256
@40000000420698a20da3ef8c tcpserver: status: 4/200
@40000000420698a20daa0df4 tcpserver: end 24240 status 256
@40000000420698a20daaa64c tcpserver: status: 3/200
@40000000420698a3153a1ec4 tcpserver: end 24231 status 256
@40000000420698a3153b1cac tcpserver: status: 2/200
@40000000420698a31dcc690c tcpserver: end 24235 status 256
@40000000420698a31dcc74c4 tcpserver: status: 1/200
@40000000420698a3267e4d2c tcpserver: end 24239 status 256
@40000000420698a3267e58e4 tcpserver: status: 0/200
@400000004206b8cc0da4f15c tcpserver: status: 1/200
@400000004206b8cc0daee824 tcpserver: pid 14669 from 127.0.0.1
@400000004206b8cc0dbdfb84 tcpserver: ok 14669 localhost:127.0.0.1:110 localhost:127.0.0.1::50254
@400000004206b8cc0dcb0f2c tcpserver: end 14669 status 256
@400000004206b8cc0dcb16fc tcpserver: status: 0/200

This is all gibberish to me, but I don’t see any FAIL’s or any obvious errors. The

modem0404-cp-tnt-d1.cpinternet.com:216.251.182.150::4321

Is me.

That all looks normal. What error do you receive on the client side, if any?

right now all I get is that it is resolving the host, then connecting, then connected and a LOOOOOOONNNNNNG wait.

It already says that:

#!/bin/bash

Startup script for smtp

chkconfig: 345 95 5

description: smtp is a mail protocol.

Source function library.

if [ -f /etc/init.d/functions ]; then
. /etc/init.d/functions
elif [ -f /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions ]; then
. /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions
fi

PATH=$PATH:/var/qmail/bin
export PATH

svc=/usr/bin/svc
svstat=/usr/bin/svstat
ret=0

prog=smtp
progdirs="/service/smtp /service/send"

Any other ideas? I’m not sure the problem is server side since I have the same issue with my softhome.net and ISP email account.

Tim

When I disable Norton Internet Serurity it suddenly works again. I did an udate of that yesterday. The question is . . . what do I do about that. I depend on that software to protect me from viruses. I just hope they release a new upgrade fixing this problem soon.

Tim

Paul you wrote, “since there is some configuration that needs to happen (which the InterWorx update will take care of) before incoming mail is virus scanned.”

Is that a 1.9 update or something sooner? I’ve got users clammering for anti-spam/anti-virus and am wonder if I should wait a couple weeks or go ahead and do the configuration myself if it is going to be longer than a couple weeks.

I doubt it’ll be that long, 1.9 is in beta now and from what I’ve heard has been very stable on their internal boxes.

1.9 is in release candidat. Look in the announcement forum and you may have it installed on your boxe.

I have tested the Beta 1.9 release and it works very well and it is very stable so I don’t think it should have some pbms with the release candidate

Pascal

Yes, very stable.

Now I’ve got the RC. It is looking good. I did have to bounce Tomcat after the upgrade to get it hooked back into Apache.