On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:28:39PM +0100, shuttlebox wrote: > On Nov 15, 2007 1:22 PM, David F. Skoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Oh, but wait. What's going on here? You upgrade ClamAV and your > > > configuration changes? That shouldn't happen at all. Are you using an > > > installer tool that overwrites your deployed configuration? Surely not! > > > > When we upgraded ClamAV, our configuration file stayed the same, BUT > > we were treated to slow and unwanted new behaviour that caused a flurry > > of support calls and significant amounts of our support time to figure > > out what the h*ll was happening. > > > Aren't these features only ever enabled if compiled with --experimental?
They were at first, but after the upgrade from 0.90.x to 0.91 the "experimental" features suddenly became the default. And yes, I did notice this in the Changelog, and we did test it. At that time I trusted the developers not to make stuff default that was still giving lots of false positives. And, it's kind of hard to test the effectiveness of a virus scanner, especially in the face of false positives (or you'd need a pretty huge test set). Since we're "reasonably" protected from FPs anyway, we decided to put it in production, but found out we were tempfailing legitimate paypal mails soon after, so we disabled the URL scanning. -- Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> !! Disclamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !! !! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !! !! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification of the logs. !! _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
