Re: [clamav-users] Scan very slow

2019-04-07 Thread Joel Esler (jesler) via clamav-users
Let us take a look at separating them. Sent from my  iPhone > On Apr 7, 2019, at 14:03, Steve Basford > wrote: > >> On 7 April 2019 17:25:56 Arnaud Jacques wrote: >> >> >> ... and one day I created a *huge* ign2 file and it crashed clamd. Ign2 >> files may not be appropriate to ignore

Re: [clamav-users] Scan very slow

2019-04-07 Thread Steve Basford
On 7 April 2019 17:25:56 Arnaud Jacques wrote: ... and one day I created a *huge* ign2 file and it crashed clamd. Ign2 files may not be appropriate to ignore tons of signatures. From memory.. daily.info (inside the daily.cvd) contains the database names included. If all phishtank sigs

Re: [clamav-users] Scan very slow

2019-04-07 Thread Arnaud Jacques
Hello, Le 07/04/2019 à 18:18, G.W. Haywood via clamav-users a écrit : Hi there, On Sun, 7 Apr 2019, Maarten Broekman wrote: Given that the PhishTank signatures, specifically, have been causing the performance issues, no. It's not unreasonable to want to pull them, and only them, out. Having

Re: [clamav-users] Scan very slow

2019-04-07 Thread G.W. Haywood via clamav-users
Hi there, On Sun, 7 Apr 2019, Maarten Broekman wrote: Given that the PhishTank signatures, specifically, have been causing the performance issues, no. It's not unreasonable to want to pull them, and only them, out. Having them in a separate db file would be highly beneficial to those of us

Re: [clamav-users] [External] Re: Scan very slow

2019-04-07 Thread Maarten Broekman via clamav-users
Having the Phishtank sigs as an additional optional database would be great and, from my perspective, well worth the effort since we don't use them. On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 9:44 AM Micah Snyder (micasnyd) via clamav-users < clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> wrote: > Tim, > > > > There are a couple

Re: [clamav-users] [External] Re: Scan very slow

2019-04-07 Thread Micah Snyder (micasnyd) via clamav-users
Tim, There are a couple of ways for users to drop specific categories of signatures at this time. Sadly, they wouldn’t have helped this last week. These include bytecode signatures, PUA (potentially unwanted applications) signatures, Email.Phishing and HTML.Phishing signatures, and the