Thats exactly the reason for my suggestion.
As I don't trust these sansecurity definitions completely, I would
like to give them a lower score, so that they are not blocked, but
marked as spam. If it would possible to implement this feature without
hazzle, it would be great to have it
Matti
David wrote:
> I'm glad you get it! These optional clamav definitions are really great.
> Since a virus hit will outright kill a message, it would be cool to be
> able to have clamd scanning higher up in the queue so as to avoid
> extraneous scanning, too.
Other than Bayesian (for me at least)
David wrote:
> The idea is that there are additional clamd definitions one can use to
> scan for spam such as the MSRBL definitions ( http://www.msrbl.com/site/
> ) and the SaneSecurity definitions (
> http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/clamav/ ) that have been discussed here
> earlier.
>
> These d
I'm glad you get it! These optional clamav definitions are really great.
Since a virus hit will outright kill a message, it would be cool to be
able to have clamd scanning higher up in the queue so as to avoid
extraneous scanning, too.
Micheal Espinola Jr wrote:
> David wrote:
>
>> I hope th
David wrote:
> I hope that covered everything.
Totally. Thanks for that. I think I'm caught up with the
conversation/issue now!
I can see the point of what you mean now. The regex scoring is
intriguing. I don't use ASSP that way, but I'm interested to see how
this conversation turns out.
Tha
The idea is that there are additional clamd definitions one can use to
scan for spam such as the MSRBL definitions ( http://www.msrbl.com/site/
) and the SaneSecurity definitions (
http://www.sanesecurity.co.uk/clamav/ ) that have been discussed here
earlier.
These definitions allow one to use
David wrote:
> I think the request for virus scoring comes not to score executable
> binary viruses, but to score the wide variety of non-virus items now
>
I don't understand the concept of virus scoring for non-virus items.
Please elaborate.
I think the request for virus scoring comes not to score executable
binary viruses, but to score the wide variety of non-virus items now
caught by things like the MSRBL and SaneSecurity definitions. I also
think that's why the feature was requested to use regexes, so that one
could differential
Kevin wrote:
> We don't score Virus hits, they are only blocked. Fritz says he does not
> see a valid reason to change this, i agree.
Same here. An attachment is a virus or its not. This is a binary
issue: 1 or 0, on or off. When something is *fundamentally* bad for
you, why consider it as an
Matti Haack wrote:
> Hello Fritz,
>
> what do you think of the idea to add the possibility to test the
> clamav results against an regex. If it matches, a different per message
> score could be added.
> So it would be possible to give the sanesecurity (or other not 100%
> proofed signatur
Hello Fritz,
what do you think of the idea to add the possibility to test the
clamav results against an regex. If it matches, a different per message
score could be added.
So it would be possible to give the sanesecurity (or other not 100%
proofed signatures) viruses a lower score than th
11 matches
Mail list logo
