Commercial virus checker failed ...

[Christopher Hicks]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Julian Field wrote:
> 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...)

Making those keywords into lists seemed pretty logical to me.  What is the
objection?

I'd been wondering anyway, is the plan for it to run all of them
regardless?  Stop after one finds a virus?  What?

--
</chris>

Neither sweat, nor blood, nor frustration, or lousy manuals
nor missing parts, or wrong parts shall keep me from my task.