Commercial virus checker failed ...

[Julian Field]

At 12:04 09/01/2002, you wrote:
>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.
>
>I'd been wondering anyway, is the plan for it to run all of them
>regardless?  Stop after one finds a virus?  What?

The plan was to run all of them, regardless of what they find. I guess I
could stop after one finds an infection, if you like. Anyone got any
thoughts on this? (I'm tempted to just say run them all, and I don't want
yet another config option!).
--
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