On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 10:40, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Saturday 20 September 2003 4:04 pm, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 18:47, Diego d'Ambra wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > Since the binary is completely missing it's difficult to create a
> > > signature that will catch the "damaged" versions of Gibe.F.
> >
> > You could probably match on the gif file that is included - I've got the
> > same 4.9K gif file on all 200 of them that I have received.
> 
> A gif is not a virus, so it should not be detected by an anti-virus program.
> 
> Anyway, what's the point?   Why bother blocking a 'damaged' copy of a virus, 
> where 'damaged' actually means 'missing'?

Do you want to receive 200 of these mails, like I did last night?

Do you want your clueless users calling you all day asking why they
can't find the patch that Microsoft e-mailed them?

The mail ought to be killed.  I think I managed to get the gif into
Razor, but my ISP doesn't use razor, so I have to download them at home
and then check razor before ditching them as spam.


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Antony.
-- 
Daniel J McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Austin Energy



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Clamav-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users

Reply via email to