[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: postfix + amavisd-new + clamscan



On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:13:43 -0400, Tom Allison <tallison@tacocat.net> wrote:
> Ran into some questions/problems with configuration amavisd-new and
> postfix and clamscan.
> 
> -----------  AMAVIS + CLAMAV
> 
> Jul  2 20:55:16 cling amavis[13330]: Using internal av scanner code for
> (primary) Clam Antivirus-clamd
> Jul  2 20:55:16 cling amavis[13330]: Found secondary av scanner Clam
> Antivirus - clamscan at /usr/bin/clamscan
> 
> [... followed by ...]
> 
> Jul  2 20:57:20 cling amavis[13331]: (13331-01) Clam Antivirus-clamd
> FAILED - unknown status:
> /var/lib/amavis/amavis-20040702T205719-13331/parts: Can't access the
>   file ERROR\n
> 
> ------   CLAMAV
> 
> Not sure what doesn't work here.  One guess is that my clamd socket
> (LocalSocket /var/run/clamav/clamd.ctl) needs to be configured in the
> amavisd config file?  No, that's not it, they are the same...
> 
> Do I need to set the USERS in clamav and amavisd to be the same?
> 

I had the same problem, as long as I can remember I solved it adding the 
user clamav to the amavis group.


> ------  POSTFIX
> 
> The other part I'm not certain about is the configuration of master.cf:
> 
> First, I'm not certain that the configuration is all the correct.
> I didn't test it as well as I should have, so I'll have to keep kind of
> quiet.
> 
> My real concern is the use of the options.  I would like to be able to
> ensure that my UCE's are implimented at the beginning of the connection
> (pre amavisd).  One problem I ran into with SuSE is that the UCE's that
> were in main.cf were not implimented until after amavis tried to deliver
> them.  This resulted in my mail server being exploited to bounce
> email-spam at other people using my postmaster ("<>") as the sender.
> Not cool!
> 
> I don't want a repeat of that one.
> 
Take a closer look at /usr/share/doc/postfix/FILTER_README.gz 
(you have to install postfix-doc)

--
Regards,
German Gutierrez



Reply to: