On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:15:15AM +0100, Antony Stone wrote :
Sound like it's working then :)
Should I submit this? or just be thankful or both?
No point submitting a virus which ClamAV already detects :) Be thankful the
team did a better job than Sophos McAfee again.
Regards,
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Denis De Messemacker wrote:
However, i do not agree completely with you. I think that every variant
of a virus should have a signature in the database, even if it is
already detected by some generic signature.
Why ? Because if we have to remove the generic signature due
Antony Stone wrote:
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 9:57 am, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
I have several emails which clamav detects as 'Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2', but
Sophos nor McAcfee will detect the virus. Would this be some new
varient that clamav fould. From the description, this sig was added to
detect
I have several emails which clamav detects as 'Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2', but
Sophos nor McAcfee will detect the virus. Would this be some new
varient that clamav fould. From the description, this sig was added to
detect possible future varients of the NetSky viruses.
Should I submit this? or
On Tuesday 06 April 2004 9:57 am, Vernon A. Fort wrote:
I have several emails which clamav detects as 'Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2', but
Sophos nor McAcfee will detect the virus. Would this be some new
varient that clamav fould. From the description, this sig was added to
detect possible future
