On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 13:20 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> 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. >
That's what I basically use it for. The majority of my hits are from the unofficial clam sigs and since my ISP/DSL provider doesn't do any virus checking, they say it violates some kind of personal rights, I feel I should do it especially since I forward some of the mail I get onto my friends who run windows machines. -- Chris KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
