Kevin W. Gagel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> I want two things out of ClamAV: (1) Security and (2) Least Surprise. >> So far, it's not doing spectacularly well on either. > ---snip--- >> team for their software and all their hard work. My comments are intended >> merely to help improve the software, not as gratuitous complaints.
> I disagree with you. The above comment by you is nothing more than a > gratuitous complaint. > Comments intended to "help improve" include possible solutions or in the > very least include specific descriptions that will help solve the problem. I did so. Here's the Least Surprise proposal: Instead of failing to start when encountering a formerly-existent configuration option, warn that it's deprecated. In the *next* release, fail to start. I consider that to be a very constructive suggestion. > Perhaps you could highlight specific scenarios and possible solutions for > the developers to "help improve" their co-operative volunteer work. See above. As for improving security, I recommended in the past that the Clam developers write unit-tests and regression-tests, and I'm very gratified to see that they now ship some unit tests. > Incidentally... We use McAfee, Avast and ClamAV. ClamAV scans all email > first, then Avast and then McAfee. ClamAV always catches a virus before > McAfee does and I have not seen Avast catch one yet. I only use Clam. I don't use commercial virus-scanners, so I have nothing else to compare Clam to. > I am more "secure" BECAUSE of ClamAV. I am not, because I don't run Windows. However, I like the fact that Clam throws away stupid viruses rather than having them clog my mailbox. I would say I'm a tiny bit less secure because of ClamAV, given its security record. But I'm willing to live with that to keep my mailbox clean. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
