G.W. Haywood wrote: >> Clam has a rather checkered security history, and some of its code >> is pretty convoluted.
> Tomasz isn't the only one who finds this boring. Please either make a > positive contribution or find another list on which to make trouble. I have contributed (financially and a couple of small patches) to Clam development. Have you? > If you think a particular piece of code is badly written, then send > patches. Don't whine about it, that will just upset everybody. I doubt my patch will be accepted, because my patch will be to turn off PhishingScanURLs by default. (I'd prefer to delete that code entirely, but I do not believe such a patch has any chance of being accepted upstream.) -- David. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html