On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 12:20:30AM +0100, Antony Stone wrote: > On Saturday 28 June 2003 12:13 am, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
<snip> > > That being said, is there any interest to add similar functionality into > > the scanning engine? This way the metadata is kept with the signature. > > That does seem like a good idea. An obvious way to do it might be to have a > specific (short) string of characters as the start or end of the virus name > which classifies it in this way? > > As you say, providing this information as part of the signature and not > needing a separate list seems like a good move. I'd rather not see a string (pre/ap)pended to the signature, a separate discussion that might address future feature requests such as this is is there any benefit in moving from the current database file structure to say using Berkeley db? A priority that I see is moving away from an md5 checksum approach for determining updates to a defined incremental system so that we can be sure to be sure updates are occurring, preferably being able to interrogate the virus database to determine the last update date for that particular revision. These two items are not intwinded... Thoughts? -- Damien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
