On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:46:11 +0200 Marcus Schopen <li...@localguru.de> wrote:
> my be a little bit off topic, but are there any experience with the > efficiency of pyzor and clamav-unofficial-sigs [1]. No comment on pyzor because I don't use it, but some of the clamav-unofficial-sigs are useful. We use the following data sets: phish.ndb rogue.hdb sanesecurity.ftm winnow_malware.hdb winnow_malware_links.ndb We find the others have unacceptably-high false-positive rates, and even the ones above occasionally get a bad signature that produces annoying false-positives. Regards, Dianne. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
