On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 11:14 -0600, Damian Menscher wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Jim Maul wrote: > > > > Is it causing you (or anyone for that matter) a problem by clamav catching > > some phishing attempts as opposed to spamassassin catching them? Whats > > really the issue here? You just dont believe clamav is the right tool for > > that job, but is there REALLY a problem? I doubt it. > > Virus signatures typically rely on some binary attachment. Phishing > signatures rely on plaintext. Therefore the probability of a false > positive goes way up. For those who drop/reject viruses, this is an > unacceptable (and unnecessary) risk.
The opposite is, in fact, true. (your initial assumptions are incorrect, and so are your conclusions) -trog
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
