On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Graham Murray wrote: > On the contrary, if it is not dangerous and ClamAV does not detect it > and product X does, then ClamAV is superior as Product X has just > generated a false positive!
While you certainly have made a reasonable case from a technical standpoint, I don't think there are any actual real world conditions in which a user wants to receive a broken copy of a worm any more than a real one, particularly in cases where worms are firing thousands of these messages at your server each day. If it is possible to accurately filter out broken versions of worms, I think that should definitely be the default option. Of course, those interested in technological purity should certainly have the ability to turn off that functionality. I leave it up to them to explain to their users the technical rationale for allowing dozens of worm-launced messages to end up in their inboxes. Jeffrey Moskot System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
