I just ran across this. I question how accurate it is though.
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/avtestresults_2D2008q1.pdf
--
Gerard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend: and inside a dog,
it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
signature.asc
Descript
> I just ran across this. I question how accurate it is though.
>
> http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/avtestresults_2D2008q1.pdf
I believe that tests clamwin, not clamav, in spite of what it says.
>
> --
> Gerard
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Nigel
__
I have done testing of ClamAV (through the ClamAV LiveCD that I make)
and Norton (latest version) in the shop that I work in and generally
ClamAV has been at least as thorough as Norton because of at least two
things.
A) When scanning with the LiveCD, you have access to otherwise protected
Windows
Only from a few years of expirience running a few small mail-servers on the web
with ClamAV, I have never seen a virus on the connected windows clients , which
are protected using AVG.
So for mail at least, I would consider ClamAV as "good enough".
I also had both ClamAV and AVG running in a
Hi,
reiner otto wrote:
> Only from a few years of expirience running a few small mail-servers
> on the web with ClamAV, I have never seen a virus on the connected
> windows clients , which are protected using AVG. So for mail at
> least, I would consider ClamAV as "good enough". I also had both
