On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > I'd say leave it to the antispammers to hammer out, and to the people > who focus on bayes filters...
In my case, if Clam has a chance to see the phishing e-mail, the anti-spam tactics have already failed. So, from my point of view, this is extra protection which would not otherwise have been offered. I'm not going to comment on the technical aspects of blocking these messages, except to say that I've always found the ClamAV team to be incredibly competent, and if they've chosen to take up this task, then they probably think they can do it effectively. > May be doing them a disservice if the signature mismatch a legit mail, > though. This is true of any pattern-matching system. > Bolting more functions to a program, extending it beyond the original > design, is a good way to start introducing problems and losing focus of > the project. I agree, but I think the basic usage of ClamAV is as a mailscanner, so this is hardly a stretch. For the same reason, I think your argument about scanning Word docs for phishiness being a waste is not really that persuasive. Also, in the big picture here, it looks like they're only adding very prevalent phishing schemes. This doesn't seem to be a proposed anti-spam solution or even a method for stamping out all phish traffic. The "slippery slope" argument is something to keep in mind, but it also shouldn't prevent simple no-brainer solutions to easily solved problems from being made available. Jeffrey Moskot System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
