Am Montag, den 19.09.2016, 08:36 -0400 schrieb Dianne Skoll: > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:46:11 +0200 > Marcus Schopen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > my be a little bit off topic, but are there any experience with the > > efficiency of pyzor and clamav-unofficial-sigs [1]. > > No comment on pyzor because I don't use it, but some of the > clamav-unofficial-sigs are useful. We use the following data sets: > > phish.ndb > rogue.hdb > sanesecurity.ftm > winnow_malware.hdb > winnow_malware_links.ndb > > We find the others have unacceptably-high false-positive rates, and > even the ones above occasionally get a bad signature that produces annoying > false-positives.
Dianne and Richard, thanks for your feedback! I will get those a try. Ciao Marcus _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
