On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:50:50 -0800
"Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dennis Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:27:57 -0800
> >> Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The follow-up. Steve - your list found over 3,000 Phishing attempts 
> >> > while=
> >>  the=20
> >> > ClamAV list found just over 300. This is since Feb. 2. I didn't expect 
> >> > th=
> >> at.=20
> >> > Thanks, bud!
> >>
> >> BTW, how do you make the stats? Do you run two seperate clamd
> >> instances, one with official databases and the other one with Steve's
> >> sigs only?
> >>
> >
> > The milter I use records the name and time of the found virus/phishing 
> > file
> > in a table. I sort out two lists based on names.
> 
> So, if one particular phish signature is listed in the official ClamAV 
> database, and is also listed in the user maintained database (phish.ndb), 
> which one take listing precedence when the message is flagged and logged, 
> the official sig entry or the user maintained sig entry?

There is no rule because ClamAV treats all loaded signatures with the
same priority. That's why doing such stats with a single clamd instance 
may lead to false results.

-- 
   oo    .....         Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  (\/)\.........         http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg
     \..........._         0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B
       //\   /\              Tue Feb 28 02:00:15 CET 2006

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html

Reply via email to