advantages: - spam/virus source will have easier job with realizing that they have a problem
Viruses should be treated differently from spam.
- messages will wait and can be accepted later
Surely not for a virus ? Personally I never want to accept a virus. I can't think of any reason why I would ever want to.
I am convinced that for RBL filters advantages are bigger than disadvanta=
ges.
It may be different with viruses
Too right. With a big enough signature, you shouldn't really experience any false positives with a virus filter. A false positive on a virus is really a bug - i.e. the signature needs to be fixed. Where as with a spam filter, the odd false positive every now and then is part of the process.
BTW: We used to use RBL, but gave up. Some are OK, some are quite poor. We now use SpamAssassin with the "miltrassassin" milter. With the addition of a few of our own rules, we're now catching about 98% of spam with about 1 false positive every two weeks.
I hate perl and would have prefered not to use SpamAssassin, but it does a really good job, esp with the Bayes enabled. We trained the bayes with about 1000 spam & 1000 ham and that seems to have been enough to get a reasonably level of accuracy.
> (I only recently started to believe they really exist)
:)) - So far we've had 2,500 SoBig-F - They exist, alright :-
http://www.messagelabs.com/viruseye/threats/
James
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Clamav-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-devel
