On 13.04.2016 09:41, pencho kuncho wrote: > Hi, > I already implemented Lena's solutions and thinking to stop ClamAV. It's only > take resources ... by my opinion. for me it felt easier to write a clamav-signature blocking js inside of zips. And it hardly takes any resources, compared to SpamAssassin. But it really depends on context. Do you use the "regular" signatures only or did you add additional signature sets (e.g. http://sanesecurity.com/usage/signatures/ ?)
For example, malwarepatrol.net offers the same signatures for clamav or as a ruleset for SpamAssassin, but the clamav ones are way more efficient. Running the clamav-ones I don't notice any difference in processing, using the SpamAssassin ones my system suffers considerably. So, if your clamav is running smoothly, I'd check alternative signatures first, before disabling it. https://github.com/extremeshok/clamav-unofficial-sigs is a great tool to get automatical updates. I added quite a lot and I'm happy. However, currently few antivirus solutions will update signatures quick enough to be really effective against current malware. Not accepting bogus messages in the first place seems to be the better option. -- Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) Steinbuch Centre for Computing (SCC) Patrick von der Hagen Zirkel 2, Gebäude 20.21, Raum 004.2 76131 Karlsruhe Telefon: +49 721 608-46433 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.scc.kit.edu KIT – Die Forschungsuniversität in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
