Nigel Horne wrote:
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 18:20, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
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.
There were two RCs for 0.84.
And 0.84 probably would not have
been needed had more people ran 0.83 rc2 and found the bugs beforehand.
-Nigel
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
And 0.84 had a very important "feature" in it, TNEF decoding and
testing. While it didn't bother us any because we would never let
anything m$ touch email, a large number of our customers use that m$
atrocity called outlook. Kudos developers !
-- Ed
______________________________________________________________
EAS*Ent.Net - World Class Web Hosting and Email Services
www.easent.net
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
