On Wednesday 06 December 2006 20:18, Darryl Gregorash wrote: > On 2006-12-06 13:54, Adi Pircalabu wrote: > > John Andersen wrote: > >> extreemly late getting out updates to very time sensitive packages > >> such as SpamAssassin. These packages are a month old. > >> > >> Cpan at most 24 hours old. > > > > 1. What is important for you may not be that important for others > > Having the most recent virus definition files is not important?
But SA is a spam flagging engine, not an AV system. I use SA and bogofilter for antispam. The AV work is done by Clam and that is updated on the hour every hour. > > 2. Newer does not always mean better/safer/faster. It rather means > > untested. > > Certainly not in the case of virus definition files. Spam != Virus > >> A generic question: Why would it be so hard for a software updater > >> package to check for the existance of packages installed by other > >> means? > > > > Why would you want this mix-up of package & source installed software? > > Especially, how can a vendor be able to offer support (a generic term > > for, let's say, software assurance) > > If a client requires a particular version of some software, so be it, > > you'll tailor the solution for them. But the stock version should always > > contain tested software. > > I guess you don't care about your clients missing the occasional new > virus that is only caught in the virus definition update that was > released today. See above. I have yet to catch a virus. I once spent an afternoon running all the dangerous .exe files in my quarantine folder through WINE to see if I could infect the system. Alas, the infection rate was low :) I still blew away my test luser account with the ~/.wine directory! Cheers Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
