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

Reply via email to