Re: [Clamav-users] RFC: Recognize mbox format

2007-10-08 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:31 -0500, René Berber wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > Another downside of this approach, together with ClamAV treating mbox > > format files as text/plain is, that only the first hit will be reported. > > That was made to improve performance, the Changelog say so.

Re: [Clamav-users] RFC: Recognize mbox format

2007-10-08 Thread Dennis Peterson
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 18:31 -0500, René Berber wrote: >> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > >>> Another downside of this approach, together with ClamAV treating mbox >>> format files as text/plain is, that only the first hit will be reported. >> That was made to improve perf

Re: [Clamav-users] RFC: Recognize mbox format

2007-10-08 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 09:15 -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote: > Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > >>> Another downside of this approach, together with ClamAV treating mbox > >>> format files as text/plain is, that only the first hit will be reported. > >> That was made to improve performance, the Changelog

Re: [Clamav-users] RFC: Recognize mbox format

2007-10-08 Thread Joao S Veiga
> > Unless you separate the mbox file(s) into maildir files and then you get exactly what > > you expect. It is, however, an annoying additional step one must take to > > ensure > > systems are as secure as possible. > > Of course. However, I got the impression that neither of the recent > repo