@AI Varnell
Yes, I have plans to rewrite it from scratch.. you willing to join me ?:)
On 9 May 2017 at 13:08, Al Varnell wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:29 AM, crazy thinker wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for Reply. How many Heuristic Scan Engines ClamAV using Now?
>
> I only know of one.
>
> All t
I would't know where to start.
-Al-
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:41 AM, crazy thinker wrote:
>
> @AI Varnell
> Yes, I have plans to rewrite it from scratch.. you willing to join me ?:)
>
> On 9 May 2017 at 13:08, Al Varnell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:29 AM, crazy thinker wrote:
>>>
Please ping me in private chat.. both u and me can do something different
On 10 May 2017 at 16:24, Al Varnell wrote:
> I would't know where to start.
>
> -Al-
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:41 AM, crazy thinker wrote:
> >
> > @AI Varnell
> > Yes, I have plans to rewrite it from scratch.. you w
Hi,
Am 01.05.2017 um 19:19 schrieb Kris Deugau:
>
> With third-party sets, you could walk through the signature names, and
> build some local scripting to split the datasets as you please - I've
> started to do this locally.
Basically that is what I tried. Maybe I just looked at the wrong places
I could be wrong, but my impression has always been that ClamAV signatures
target only Malware and Phishing, while Spam detection is all done using
UNOFFICIAL sigs.
Sent from Janet's iPad
-Al-
--
Al Varnell
Mountain View, CA
On May 10, 2017, at 10:11 PM, nobs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 01.05.2017 u
@AI
For Phishing Only, ClamAV uses Heuristics scanning ?
On 11 May 2017 at 11:10, Al Varnell wrote:
> I could be wrong, but my impression has always been that ClamAV signatures
> target only Malware and Phishing, while Spam detection is all done using
> UNOFFICIAL sigs.
>
> Sent from Janet's iP
No. A quick search reveals 2,884 signatures that contain "Phishing" and I'm
sure there are others. Some are documents, some HTML, but most are e-mail. None
are labeled "Heuristics", but it could be argued that some of them are.
-Al-
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:44 PM, crazy thinker wrote:
>
> @A
