Arnaud, Nothing I said was negative against 3rd party signature makers. I hope you are not upset by my comments. As I said, there is a ton of good content out there, and we want to get it out to more users.
As far as feedback, I'll talk to our team. -- Joel Esler iPhone On Jul 14, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Arnaud Jacques / SecuriteInfo.com<http://SecuriteInfo.com> <webmas...@securiteinfo.com<mailto:webmas...@securiteinfo.com>> wrote: Hello Joel, You're right. Nothing I said was negative. We know exactly what happens when our testing is done. We don't know in other cases. I didn't say anything about the quality of 3rd party signatures. In fact, the quality is so good, that's exactly why we are rolling out the program to protect more people. I have couple of signatures, handmade, I submited to community-sigs. And I have *no news* from them. Did they pass false positive tests ? Are they wrong ? Will they be published one day ? Do Clamav want better detection ratio ? If yes, the minimum is to provide news for sigmakers that sumbit their signatures (time and efforts) to community-sigs to be included in official Clamav databases. Protecting customers is a good thing. We're always going to try and do that. We (third parties) do that too ;) -- Best regards, Arnaud Jacques SecuriteInfo.com<http://SecuriteInfo.com> Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/pages/SecuriteInfocom/132872523492286 Twitter : @SecuriteInfoCom _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
