On Wednesday 25 February 2004 4:26 pm, Jim Maul wrote:
> > Which raises another question - if NAV and clamav detected
> > virus differently, does this mean, that NAV virus database has newest
> > viruses first while clamav has newest last?
>
> Isnt this an issue of AV programs calling viruses by d
-Original Message-
From: Virgo Pärna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 25. Feb 2004 3:01 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Clamav-users] Re: Multiple viruses in same file.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:32:50 +0800, cc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But wouldn't tha
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:01:48 + (UTC)
Virgo Pärna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, my idea was to have switch to enable it Not to do
> it by default, but to have this ability for testing purposes. Like
That was supported in ClamAV <= 0.15 (enabled by default and could be
disable
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:32:50 +0800, cc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But wouldn't that waste cpu cycles when it has already been confirmed
> that the said file is infected? I mean, if say you were scanning your
>
Actually, my idea was to have switch to enable it Not to do
it by defau
