On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Kris Deugau <kdeu...@vianet.ca> wrote: > Charles Swiger wrote: >> The milter approach is less flexible. With a scoring mechanism, you can >> rate actual viruses sufficiently negative that the scoring algorithm will >> always reject them. > > That depends on the milter you're using. My own favoured milter is > MIMEDefang, which allows you do do anything you like to a message in > transit so long as you can figure out how to code it in Perl.
Fair enough. clamav-milter was implied by context, but MIMEDefang is certainly a decent choice, especially if one can do a bit of Perl hacking. For what it is worth, I've been happier with Python-based filters, since they tend to use less resources than the Perl-based software. But that has more to do with how well people can write code in the different languages-- I've also seen some very lightweight and efficient Perl code. > ClamAV hits on any of the Heuristics.* tests get flagged instead of > treated the same as the signature-based hits, and that flag either > causes an an adjustment in the SpamAssassin results returned directly to > MIMEDefang later on, or a header is added which I check for in > SpamAssassin on mail delivery. Are you using LMTP, or did SpamAssassin grow a local delivery agent capability? Last I'd seen, amavisd-new or MailScanner are still recommended for integration between the MTA and SpamAssassin / ClamAV.... Regards, -- -Chuck _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
