> > > > I'd like to second that. Those of us depending on clamav to catch > > stuff can't afford to upgrade in the middle of the day for new > > signatures to work. > > Why not? If you say "because it's a production system and it needs to be > tested", then that is a business decision to accept the risk of letting > in known viruses. > > Most people would prefer that updates to the code to catch more viruses > are released. > > > And why don't these new signatures work? Has that interface not > > yet stabilized? > > No. Adding more powerful features to the scanning engine requires > changes to the signature format. > > -trog >
Could I add my two penneth on this one? No disrespect to anyone specific, but their seems to be a lot of whingeing of late regarding it doesn't do this or that, or it's not catching this virus. Anyone who is dependent upon virii scanning for their business security/stability, should never rely wholly upon one method of detection/prevention. If you want to be 100% safe, it isn't going to happen, either with a commercial vendor, or otherwise. It's a case of minimising, not obliterating. Perfection doesn't exist. It's about time someone actually said thanks or well done to the maintainers/writers of Clam, not to keep slating them. Try to achieve this level of speed and communication with a commercial vendor! Personally, I would like to say thanks for a stonkingly good AV scanner. Keep it up chaps. All the best Matt ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
