sherpya
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: Italy |
|
 |
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:33 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
WARNING: Invalid DNS reply. Falling back to HTTP mode.
uh?
can you create
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\ClamWinNameServer
as string containing a working nameserver pls?
|
|
arscw
Joined: 21 Mar 2008 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: USA - Tampa, FL |
|
 |
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:44 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
The WARNING was from the previous run earlier before testing with your new executable. The latest entry at the ***bottom*** shows no WARNING. I just included the old output so you can appreciate the problem WAS indeed solved in the new freshclam.exe. There is no more WARNING using the new executable. There are two database load log entries on the post.
|
|
sherpya
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: Italy |
|
 |
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
0.93c is out, freshclam.exe is fixed and clamscan adds memory scanner
https://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/clamwin/clamwin-legacy-nt4-0.93c.exe https://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/clamwin/clamwin-legacy-nt4-0.93c.exe
if the link does not work, please try later
|
|
arscw
Joined: 21 Mar 2008 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: USA - Tampa, FL |
|
 |
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:06 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Downloaded and tested 0.93c:
installation
download database - gui & batch
disk scan - gui & batch
mail notify - test mode
memory scan - gui & batch
Everything seemed to run fine.
I am still curious about the difference in execution times between 0.92 and 0.93c. The latest time for a scan of C: and D: is down to 33min 44sec under 0.93c. Like I said before, 0.92 used to take over 80 minutes !! There is no relevant difference in disk space between the tests.
Thanks again for all your help and efforts.
|
|
sherpya
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 |
Posts: 0 |
Location: Italy |
|
 |
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:56 pm |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
- the scanner engine of 0.93 is faster (clamav developers improved it)
- new limits handling avoid scanning of unneeded files
|
|