On Tuesday 24 February 2004 1:46 pm, Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
> I was given a pdf of a response time article written by Andreas
> Marx at AV-test.org, but on a side note, she thinks he was unofficially
> stating that Clam AV had only a 56% rate detection of virii in the wild -
> I'd say my experience is better, perhaps this is someone to chat with?
I wonder how long ago this was tested (ClamAV's signatures have really come on
in the last 6-12 months), and also whether the testing was done with viruses
which are currently in the wild, or with viruses which have been known to be
in the wild (ClamAV does much better with current threats than with
historical curiosities).
Regards,
Antony.
--
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no
difference, whereas in practice there is.
Please reply to the list;
please don't CC me.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_______________________________________________
Clamav-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
