Commercial virus checker failed ...

[Julian Field]

At 11:25 09/01/2002, you wrote:
>At 02:49 09/01/2002, you wrote:
>>On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 09:44:37AM +1000, Scott Farrell wrote:
>> > For me it would be fail over.
>>
>>         Hmmm...  Good point.  I think.  But that's yet another REAL
>>GOOD reason for multiple scanners.  HA failover if one blows chunks.
>
>Good idea, folks. You can stop debating the issue now, I'll implement it
>for the next release :-)
>
>The "Virus Scanner" and "Sweep" keywords will become comma/space-separated
>lists for backward compatibility with existing setups. I'll leave it up to
>you to ensure that all the values of "Sweep" stay on 1 line. That's about
>the simplest change I can think of.

Has anyone got any better ideas for the keywords than my suggestion above?
(Nick doesn't like it...)
--
Julian Field                Teaching Systems Manager
jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk         Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
Tel. 023 8059 2817          University of Southampton
                             Southampton SO17 1BJ