John Rudd wrote: > Dennis Peterson wrote: >> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: >>> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 07:28 -0700, John Rudd wrote: >>>> (to the developers, not in answer to Burnie) >>>> >>>> See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at >>>> all to my proposed scheme from a month or two ago. >>> Coincidentally, my very first question on this list years ago was about >>> naming conventions (or the lack thereof), too. :) >>> >>> karsten >>> >>> >> That probably means names are really not all that important in the big >> picture. > > ... > >> There are much more important things to be concerned with than what a >> virus is called. > > You're awfully cavalier about what's important to other people's email. > The fact that they're not important to you does not mean that they are > unimportant.
I've never offered anything buy my opinion and what is important to me. Cavalier would be for me to describe what is important to you. That didn't happen. > > For example, under my proposed scheme, I could easily decide to: > > 1) reject viruses during SMTP > 2) accept, but hold in quarantine, messages matching phishing sigs > 3) accept, but mark as possible spam, messages matching spam sigs > (and possibly even rating the likelihood of spam based upon a > false-positive reputation score for the given signature source) You can and probably should do just this. You have all the data you need, you have your wishes defined, and you are just a few lines of perl code away from accomplishing it. After you have done this you can, as others have, make your effort available to others. Perhaps it will become extremely popular, in fact. Give it a try. That is what open source is all about. > > But, without a coherent and explicit name convention, the rules for > doing so would be so complex as to be not be worth the effort in writing > them. In some cases, it's even ambiguous as to which of the above > categories a given message falls in to. You have the pattern files - change the damn names. Nothing to stop you. > > The only people dismissing the name convention as "unimportant" are > people who aren't paying attention to the bigger picture (in that > they're only looking at what's important in their own part of the picture). The names of viruses have never been important to me. I don't care what they are. That's me, that's my opinion. That is what I am entitled to. You, on the other hand, have a part of a picture that requires additional effort and you have all the resources to accomplish what you wish, but you do not have the desire to do it. You wish for others to do it. Those same others are the very people the rest of us depend on for this excellent and free product. I, at least, would prefer they do what is important for me and will continue to be important for you. You would prefer they do that but also what is important to you but not others. By the way, if it were important to enough people it would aready be happening because that is how market forces work, but you knew that. > > I'll even volunteer some of my time to help develop the name scheme > (I've already put one such scheme forward), and to help re-organize the > signatures that are already out there. I'm not just complaining, I'm > offering to be part of the solution. > > Yet, all I've gotten on this, until today, is total silence. And you don't build you own because why? It can't be difficult to write a script that rewrites the existing pattern files to suit your needs. dp _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
