On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:15:15AM +0100, Antony Stone wrote : > Sound like it's working then :) > > > Should I submit this? or just be thankful or both? > > No point submitting a virus which ClamAV already detects :) Be thankful the > team did a better job than Sophos & McAfee again. > > Regards, > > Antony. >
Wow, it seems that Diego did a nice job with all those generic signatures. However, i do not agree completely with you. I think that every variant of a virus should have a signature in the database, even if it is already detected by some generic signature. Why ? Because if we have to remove the generic signature due to some false positives, the variant virus will no longer be detected. So, generic signatures are fine, but I think we should also have signatures for a maximum of variants. Just my two cents, /ddm -- Denis De Messemacker GnuPG Key-ID: 0x02787880 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-labs.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ClamAV.net - A GPL virus scanner ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
