On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Denis De Messemacker wrote:
>
> However, i do not agree completely with you. I think that every variant
> of a virus should have a signature in the database, even if it is
> already detected by some generic signature.
>
> Why ? Because if we have to remove the generic signature
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:15:15AM +0100, Antony Stone wrote :
> Sound like it's working then :)
>
> > Should I submit this? or just be thankful or both?
>
> No point submitting a virus which ClamAV already detects :) Be thankful the
> team did a better job than Sophos & McAfee again.
>
> Reg
Antony Stone wrote:
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 9:57 am, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
I have several emails which clamav detects as 'Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2', but
Sophos nor McAcfee will detect the virus. Would this be some new
varient that clamav fould. From the description, this sig was added to
detect
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 9:57 am, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
> I have several emails which clamav detects as 'Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2', but
> Sophos nor McAcfee will detect the virus. Would this be some new
> varient that clamav fould. From the description, this sig was added to
> detect possible future
