> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 13:20:56 +0200 > Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote: > > 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.
On 06.09.10 16:01, RW wrote: > I don't see what you are saying here. The plugin simply passes the mail > intact to clamd. but SA has to load it first which I found less effective. > And you don't have to score clamv as a single poison-pill rule if you > don't want to. I found it better to imediately reject viruses. On my maching I only use official signatures and clamav-milter to reject viruses at SMTP time. -- 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. (R)etry, (A)bort, (C)ancer
