jef moskot wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, JamesDR wrote: >> ...if your users are being let down by the 'time it takes to get a >> phish sig' then isn't about time their network/mail admin looked into >> added levels of detection? > > I think the original point was that if Clam is going to scan for > phishing at all, the response time might be too slow to be useful, > given the frequency with which the content changes.
That was exactly my point, yes. To be fair, I submitted another phishing sample yesterday, and had the update in about 5 hours, which is much more acceptable. /Per Jessen, Zürich _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
