Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:41:27 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Chris <bsd@1command.com> Cc: apircalabu@bitdefender.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bdc BitDefender Console - problems, problems Message-ID: <20060322124127.4712ae9c@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20060322020605.tocbj4eibk0k4kss@webmail.1command.com> References: <20060321233021.59hsmdorkgckc0so@webmail.1command.com> <20060322103146.3c1f6997@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20060322020605.tocbj4eibk0k4kss@webmail.1command.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:06:05 -0800
Chris <bsd@1command.com> wrote:
> Quoting Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com>:
>
> >
> > [ cc'ing port maintainer, which is always a good idea ]
>
> Thank you, and thank you for your reply.
Then let's keep him cc'ed on our replies, shall we ?
> >> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:30:21 -0800
> > Chris <bsd@1command.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> >> I then rebooted after the install. Only to be greeted with an
> >> rc message indicating that compat4x was not completely/ correctly
> >> installed. I quickly discovered that I needed to enable it in rc.conf.
> >> OK, wouldn't it be prudent to place a banner at the end of the compat4x
> >> install; warning that an entry in rc is required to ENable compat4x? I
> >> enabled it in my kernconf already, as well as Linux emulation/
> >> compatibility.
> >> Linux ABI. As well as Apache and many (most?) of the other ports
> >> that require
> >> rc support *do* inform the user after install of this need. I guess I'm
> >> just really suprised that something that *is* freebsd doesn't. Just thought
> >> it was worth mentioning.
> >
> > Look for the message telling you an rc.d file has been installed and if
> > you see it
>
> Yes. This is thr "banner" I was *expecting* to see when the port finished
> installing. So that I would know that it did/ did not need adding to rc.
> But it wasn't there. Nor anything close to resembling such a message.
> This is all of course if I understand you correctly.
Since :
.if ${OSVERSION} > 700011
...
.else
...
USE_RC_SUBR= 000.${PORTNAME}.sh
...
.endif
on your console:
"===> Installing rc.d startup script(s)"
and when you see this you must set something_enable="YES" in rc.conf[.local]
> > you can be 98% sure you have to enable it via
> > rc.conf[.local] Eventually all ports start-up scripts will be converted
> > to rc.d and will have to be enable via rc.onf[.local]
>
> Understood.
>
> >
> >> One last problem; about bdc itself. I ran it against all the mailboxes
> >> after making it happy about the libfn problem. I used the following:
> >>
> >> bdc --arc --files --log --debug --mail --disinfect --move /var/mail
> >>
> >> which returned:
> >>
> >> BDC/FreeBSD 5.x-Console (v7.0-2545) (i386) (Dec 22 2004 19:56:57)
> >> Copyright (C) 1996-2004 SOFTWIN SRL. All rights reserved.
> >>
> >> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[S ... (CET)]=>(MIME part)=>q361598.exe
> >> infected: Win32.Swen.A@mm <- cevakrnl.xmd
> >> /var/mail/infos=>(message 37)=>[Subject: ... 6 +0100 (CET)]=>(MIME
> >> part)=>q361598.exe move failed <- cevakrnl.xmd
> >>
> >> It doesn't appear that all that work to get bdc installed and working
> >> was worth the time and trouble after all. Isn't it capable of disinfection
> >> yet?
> >
> > My policy has always been that infected mail should be deleted :)
>
> Agreed! Unfortunately it's in mbox format and will take a little
> ferriting to find/ cut/ delete. :(
Maybe converting it ro maildir, scanning then converting it back would
be an (easy) workaround ?
> I'm used to the AV being capable
> of doing that. My *purchased* copy for (Win)NT server version of BitDefender
> *does* disinfect things quite effectively. Hence my choice of installs
> for FreeBSD. I would *dearly* hate to have to depend on some *lame* win boexn
> for mail services. >:(
Hmm, indeed.
[ ... ]
> >> So it *knows* what it is. But doesn't appear to be a mature enough
> >> ant-virus application to actually disinfect or protect a system yet.
> >> Is that true?
> >
> > Might be true for disinfection for some viruses, but not for all. As to
> > protection, I believe it does it job adequately: it detects the
> > viruses and the signatures are updated very quick.
>
> Agreed. But not _currently_ without (excessive?) administrative overhead.
One of the problems with FreeBSD support (and not only for BitDefender
but also other companies, ie. Opera) was/is the number/impact of
changes from 4.x to 6.x; since the income comes mostly from Windows and
Linux users, those two platforms are the primary target. I don't like
it but that's the way things are. Speaking of BitDefender I can tell
that the Linux/Unix team has put a lot of effort in the FreeBSD variant
(and from what I know some of it in their free time). Adi (or someone
else from them who reads this list) could probably tell more about the
status of the FreeBSD port that I can; since you are satisfied of their
Windows variant, you might want to participate in the FreeBSD
beta-testing program (at least some time ago they were looking for
real-world testing for 9.x version).
--
IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
BOFH excuse #288:
Hard drive sleeping, let it wake up on it's own...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060322124127.4712ae9c>