From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 22 10:41:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAE316A42F for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:41:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (it.buh.tecnik93.com [81.196.204.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4783743D53 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:41:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED741774A; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:41:28 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:41:27 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Chris 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> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.8.16; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: apircalabu@bitdefender.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bdc BitDefender Console - problems, problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:41:31 -0000 On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:06:05 -0800 Chris wrote: > Quoting Ion-Mihai Tetcu : > > > > > [ 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 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...