jef moskot wrote:
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.

I haven't looked at our data closely enough to say whether or not this is
true for our site, but it seems like it's worth looking into.

Jeffrey Moskot

This piqued my interest. I had a quick look at some logs and it would appear at the relatively small ISP I work for, Clamav is catching ~3500 phishing messages per day.

If the sigs were updated at a more feverish pace, I'm sure more would get caught. So, while I'm sure there are some slipping through, as it is now it's definitely still 'useful'... for our purposes anyway.

There are several reasons why I'm still more than happy with Clamav (not to imply that anyone else was complaining).

1. Clamav = free
2. 3500 > 0
3. We only started using it for virus protection, blocking ANY phishing attempts is just icing on the cake for me.



Cheers,
Matt

PS, I know this is a bit late, but I figured I'd just throw my $0.02 in. I'll go back to lurking now.
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html

Reply via email to