Dennis Peterson wrote: > To blame ClamAV for letting you down is unkind and inaccurate.
Perhaps you would care to state the purposes of ClamAVs phishing detection? Admittedly, I have not read up on it myself, but merely assumed it was to provide reasonable means of protection against phishing. And no, I don't class a signature that is 56 hours under way as "reasonable". > And in my opinion, submitting a sample should not be done to correct > your problem - you should already have done that - the submission is a > contribution to the community so others will benefit from the event > you experienced. If this is the way it is supposed to work, perhaps it would appropriate to ask for a showing of hands - how many of the current sample contributors create their own signatures first, then submit a sample later? Personally, I think the community is more important. > And there's really no reason to continue this. Do feel free not to. My point (again, not a complaint) is - the quality of the phishing signature collection is not currently sufficient to warrant using ClamAV as any means against phishing. The number phishing signatures collected is mostly irrelevant, whereas the speed with which a new signature can be published is not. /Per Jessen, Zürich _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
