>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:26:08 +0200 >> Yet Another Ninja <sa-l...@alexb.ch> wrote:
>>> You're using the SA ClamAV plugin which isn't the most effcient >>> method do do AV checks. > On 2010-09-06 12:49, RW wrote: >> What's wrong with it? On 06.09.10 13:14, Yet Another Ninja wrote: > nothing "wrong" but my first choice would be to reject infected files at > MTA level (via milter, proxy, etc) instead of parsing with SA and tag > it... imo, unnecessary overhead. using clamav directly, without SA, is more effective. ClamAV plugin seems to be OK for checking for things like phishes or strustured data like credit card numbers, in which case it may cause false positives. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "The box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I bought a Macintosh".
