On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 16:21, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > It is not a hard nosed approach to protocols or what is or isn't a > virus, it's (to me) the possibility that taking on spam with signatures > is losing focus of the objective to Clam. When projects lose focus, > the quality degrades, and there's greater chance of bugs being > introduced.
None of the Clam development team have even mentioned adding general spam filtering to ClamAV. > > I think (julian's?) original problem was that he didn't see why a virus > scanner should shoulder the responsibility for every message that goes > out saying "Hey, click here for k3wl new deals on Mort Gage rat3s! > Yoove been approved!", when it's not a virus, it's something that is > enticing people who should know better to click on it for free crap and > more spam. Clam doesn't attempt to do what you describe, not has any of the development team suggested it will or should. > Oh,..and ClamAV and the Clam team have done a wonderful job so far with > the antivirus thing. Please keep up the good work on that. But I'd > still beg people favoring the idea of the spam fighting integration to > instead volunteer to help the teams behind Spamassassin or other OSS > spam filtering software efforts... Except no one is favouring the idea. -trog
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
