On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:11 -0700, Bill Taroli wrote: > Matt Fretwell wrote:
> I completely agree with your point. But taken from a different > perspective, this may be one reason to justify that such a product not > be used in production IT environments. The point should *not* be missed > that something so crucial to one's infrastructure -- that you would of > course want to keep up to date -- should *require* updating on a weekly > basis to solve *software* issues. Obviously, keeping signatures up to > date is extremely important. But if software is so buggy that regular > code upgrades are required, one really needs to start wondering why > that's the case... is it for functionality enhancements, or due to quality? Even commercial AV products load new engines - and sometimes re-install themselves - fairly frequently. Seems every time I plug in my windows box I'm getting a new engine update from Symantec - which tells you how often I run windows ;-) but the 0.84 - 0.85 was definitely a bug-fix. For 0.83 there was an rc release series, but none for 0.84. And 0.84 probably would not have been needed had more people ran 0.83 rc2 and found the bugs beforehand. -- Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CNX Austin Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
