Am Montag, den 19.09.2016, 08:36 -0400 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:46:11 +0200
> Marcus Schopen <> 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.


NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID.  You may ignore it.

Visit and
MIMEDefang mailing list

Reply via email to