On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote: > Even timid users need to edit the file as a minimum to disable the > "Example" line. Once there I'm certain they can then change the other > critical areas that require attention.
>From my point of view, without the phishing code, you can pretty safely use Clam to divert messages with very nearly 100% accuracy, due to the signature-based scheme. With the phishing code enabled, a positive hit is now only suggestive of a bad message. You can't use it to block messages outright, which fundamentally changes the nature of the product. I might feel differently if Clam hadn't been idiot-proof for years, but since it's set such a high standard in the past, I think the phishing code (in its current state) muddies the waters and could easily make a new user lose confidence in the project. That said, I like the idea that Clam is experimenting with anti-phishing, but until the code lives up to Clam's previous block-and-forget standards, I don't think it's a good idea to make it a default. I suppose the benefit is that it helps with testing, and driving the point home to users that the phishing protection is not like the virus protection. Jeffrey Moskot System Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
