On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 19:32 -0800, Dennis Peterson wrote: > Robin wrote: > > Jan Pieter: Thanks for balancing out the arguments! > > > > I have been trying to convince the upper end folks to accept clamav so > > I was looking for some good use cases compared to McAfee CommandLine > > Scanner, since this would be the product I would use from the > > corporate standard of McAfee. > > > > Since I will be using the scanner on-demand I tested it scanning a > > simple file and it was 10x slower than ClamAV. I am not really > > concerned about email viruses as I will be scanning document formats > > (odt, docx, doc, etc). The speed is another argument that I am trying > > to put forward as well. > > > > Regards, > > Robin > > > > http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ns/legal/ > > It's so good that TrendMicro thought it worth going to court to stop it.
It is good - and thanks to Dennis for pointing it out. The Barracuda link is synonymous with the fact that they stole it, bundled it into a crappy little Mandrake Linux low end PC and sell it *as* a commercial product. Chuck in some extra rules that look suspiciously similar to Sane's and your cooking on gas. Mind you where Barracuda are concerned it's important to take other peoples work, defend that stance and give very little back. Especially when your own developers can't code something like Perl without producing a shed load of errors, and your best programmer only has solid real life experience working with the Commodore Amiga. Clam is a brilliant and flexible engine and it stands up very well - so much so that other companies are happy to *sell* it to you :-) _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
