On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:17:16PM +0200, Arnaud Jacques wrote: > Ged, > > >>Did you try spam_marketing.ndb from securiteinfo.com ? We detect many > >>spams/phishing. > > > >Thanks - no, I don't use that one. It's listed at Sanesecurity as > >having a high false positive rate. > > As far as I know, this review has not been updated since years. > We fight false positives as soons as we discover one. This is our priority. > Anyway, the best choice is to give a try, custom the signatures if > necessary, and make your own opinion, not only rely on 3rd party evaluation > from years ago. > > About my own tests, on several mail servers, spam_marketing.ndb detects a > lot more spam and phishing than SaneSecurity signatures. No offense to > SaneSecurity, it is just my own opinion. spam_marketing.ndb does not pretend > to replace SaneSecurity, but is a complement.
General comment: Using any third party rules with ClamAV is a gamble, but they are very good for scoring with Amavisd/Spamassassin etc. In my setup I don't even trust the official signatures, I just score everything along with SA. _______________________________________________ clamav-users mailing list clamav-users@lists.clamav.net https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
