On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 22:06 +0000, Christian Salway wrote: > I concur. GTUBE shouldn't be included. > > However, the question should be asked as to why the request was > orginally requested?
>From what I can see in the original request, there was no pressing requirement to include it [1]. It was more of a "shouldn't this be included" enquiry, based on it being a test conducted by an email checking website [2]. However, the text in that website for the test states: "The third mail (3/7) is harmless spam message (GTUBE spam signature), and should be detected by every spam filter. Depending on the configuration of your spam filter, this mail may never reach you." >From that description, I would not expect ClamAV to pick it up. > Coincidentally, spamassassin can be setup to pick up gtube before it > reaches clamav. My argument is more that a user may not realise that clamav is picking it up. This was the case for me: I have been testing spamassassin for the last couple of years using GTUBE, but didn't realise until now that it was actually clamav picking the message up, rather than spamassassin. So in actual fact spamassassin may not have been working. Careless on my part, I know, but I'm sure I'm not the only one! Andy [1] http://lurker.clamav.net/message/20090924.234610.57310ea1.en.html [2] http://www.emailsecuritycheck.net/index.html _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
