On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:01:48 -0400, Samuel Benzaquen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can also say that they don't want to compete against commercial AV vendors
as I have read here 2^32 times that we should use not _only_ clamav, but a
list of AVs to improve the chances to catch malware.
Best
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Rob MacGregor wrote:
From: Rob MacGregor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:58:17 +
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Report Phishing attacks?
Reply-To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
On Mon, 21
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 12:47:54 -0600, Sam wrote:
How does one go about getting the text for JS.Scramble to put into the
user.db file? Is there a location for strings that have been pulled out?
If you mean JS.Spam.Scramble.A, please find it attached.
Disclaimer: use it at your own risk.
On Mar 21, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:06:02 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian Mehnle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Probably more like: can we have 'technical-threats.cvd' and
'non-technical-threats.cvd' instead of
On Mar 22, 2005, at 6:35 AM, Dennis Davis wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Rob MacGregor wrote:
From: Rob MacGregor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:58:17 +
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Report Phishing attacks?
Reply-To: ClamAV users ML
On Mar 22, 2005, at 4:58 AM, Rob MacGregor wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:01:48 -0400, Samuel Benzaquen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can also say that they don't want to compete against commercial AV
vendors
as I have read here 2^32 times that we should use not _only_ clamav,
but a
list of AVs to
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
From: Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:40:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Report Phishing attacks?
...
I believe this is what the commercial anti-virus company
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 12:47:54 -0600, Sam wrote:
How does one go about getting the text for JS.Scramble to put into the
user.db file? Is there a location for strings that have been pulled out?
If you mean JS.Spam.Scramble.A, please find
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Personally, my gripe is that the product is called ClamAV. If it's
expanding it's mission to protect people from everything called
malware, I'd change the name to something that indicates it's a
malware detector and not a virus detector. Phishing scams are *not*
On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Dennis Davis wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
From: Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ClamAV users ML clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:40:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] Report Phishing attacks?
...
I believe
On Mar 22, 2005, at 9:43 AM, BitFuzzy wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Personally, my gripe is that the product is called ClamAV. If it's
expanding it's mission to protect people from everything called
malware, I'd change the name to something that indicates it's a
malware detector and not a
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 at 8:33:09 -0600, Sam wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
If you mean JS.Spam.Scramble.A, please find it attached.
Disclaimer: use it at your own risk.
Thanks Tomas!
(I'm a little worried now though with your disclaimer... :) Was it just
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I can't believe you still didn't get the point.
This is NOT about removing ClamAV's capacity for detecting phishing
attacks, little yellow rubber ducks in PNG images, or whatever else. This
is about making it _optional_, for those people who don't want certain
types of
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I can't believe you still didn't get the point.
This is NOT about removing ClamAV's capacity for detecting phishing
attacks, little yellow rubber ducks in PNG images, or whatever else.
This
is about making it _optional_, for those people who don't want certain
types of
At 06:43 AM 3/22/2005, BitFuzzy wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Personally, my gripe is that the product is called ClamAV. If it's
expanding it's mission to protect people from everything called
malware, I'd change the name to something that indicates it's a malware
detector and not a virus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
your argument isn't consistent.
Paul Theodoropoulos
Here we go again.
dp
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
At 10:08 AM 3/22/2005, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
your argument isn't consistent.
Paul Theodoropoulos
Here we go again.
Perhaps this is why it keeps coming up. An action based upon a flawed or
inconsistent stance tends to do that. Why aren't we blocking Nigeria Scams?
people have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
um, reread what you just wrote. 'any item regardless of it's delivery
method that has the potential to do harm financially or otherwise'.
let's see, little old ladies emailing their bank account information
to MRS. MIRIAM SESE SEKO, LATE OF THE CHIEF PETROLEUM RESERVES
BitFuzzy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between what's being detected as phishing attempts is
that they are crafted to make you believe you are at
http://www.your-bank.com, ebay.com, paypal.com, etc. They are in most
cases very convincing, thus not only the foolish can fall
BitFuzzy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference between what's being detected as phishing attempts is
that they are crafted to make you believe you are at
http://www.your-bank.com, ebay.com, paypal.com, etc. They are in most
cases very convincing, thus not only the foolish can fall prey. (I
Julian Mehnle wrote:
The way to combat phishing is to employ sender authentication methods
such as SPF, DomainKeys, and public-key message cryptography.
This is unfortunately debatable. SPF, DomainKeys, cryptography, SenderID, etc.
can only work on info in the message.
Nothing stops people
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
The way to combat phishing is to employ sender authentication methods
such as SPF, DomainKeys, and public-key message cryptography.
This is unfortunately debatable. SPF, DomainKeys, cryptography,
SenderID, etc. can only work on info in the
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:49:40PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
The way to combat phishing is to employ sender authentication methods
such as SPF, DomainKeys, and public-key message cryptography.
This is unfortunately debatable. SPF,
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:55:38 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian Mehnle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The way to combat phishing is to employ sender authentication methods
such as SPF, DomainKeys, and public-key message cryptography.
SPF is not a good way to do this, it does practically nothing to
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Nothing stops people from registering a domain like
onlinebanking.example and then sending out - perfectly legitimately
- from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still the sender is not @citibank.com.
But I could form a
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Stampfli wrote:
My question: Does the ClamAV team want examples of these
phishing emails submitted to them through their
http://cgi.clamav.net/sendvirus.cgi interface?
You can submit them via the web interface.
-trog
signature.asc
Description:
Trog wrote:
Robert Stampfli wrote:
My question: Does the ClamAV team want examples of these
phishing emails submitted to them through their
http://cgi.clamav.net/sendvirus.cgi interface?
You can submit them via the web interface.
Can I submit my spam, too? It is bad, so it should be
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 16:06 +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Trog wrote:
Robert Stampfli wrote:
My question: Does the ClamAV team want examples of these
phishing emails submitted to them through their
http://cgi.clamav.net/sendvirus.cgi interface?
You can submit them via the web
Trog wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Trog wrote:
Robert Stampfli wrote:
My question: Does the ClamAV team want examples of these
phishing emails submitted to them through their
http://cgi.clamav.net/sendvirus.cgi interface?
You can submit them via the web interface.
Can I
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, McDonald, Dan wrote:
They don't think spam, even spam with embedded java script to obscure the
nature of the spam, is malware. That was the JS.Scramble pattern that was
quite effective at killing off lots of spam, but they chose to remove it,
and that's their right.
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Trog wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Trog wrote:
Robert Stampfli wrote:
My question: Does the ClamAV team want examples of these
phishing emails submitted to them through their
http://cgi.clamav.net/sendvirus.cgi interface?
You can submit them via the web
Sam wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, McDonald, Dan wrote:
They don't think spam, even spam with embedded java script to
obscure the nature of the spam, is malware. That was the
JS.Scramble pattern that was quite effective at killing off lots of
spam, but they chose to remove it, and that's their
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 08:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, McDonald, Dan wrote:
They don't think spam, even spam with embedded java script to
obscure the nature of the spam, is malware. That was the
JS.Scramble pattern that was quite effective at killing
Trog wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 08:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like a feature request to me... can we have a user.cvd file
(in addition to main.cvd and daily.cvd)
The features been there for a long time already. Read the
documentation.
Relevant documentation:
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Sounds like a feature request to me... can we have a user.cvd file
(in addition to main.cvd and daily.cvd)
Probably more like: can we have 'technical-threats.cvd' and
'non-technical-threats.cvd' instead of 'main.cvd'?
___
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:07:31 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian Mehnle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
Sounds like a feature request to me... can we have a user.cvd file
(in addition to main.cvd and daily.cvd)
Probably more like: can we have 'technical-threats.cvd' and
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Trog wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 08:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, McDonald, Dan wrote:
They don't think spam, even spam with embedded java script to
obscure the nature of the spam, is malware. That was the
JS.Scramble
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Probably more like: can we have 'technical-threats.cvd' and
'non-technical-threats.cvd' instead of 'main.cvd'?
You don't give up do you? ;-)
Not until someone convincingly explains to me why my request for a
Matt Fretwell wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
You don't give up do you? ;-)
Not until someone convincingly explains to me why my request for a
practical option to distinguish between technical and non-technical
threats (i.e. exploitation of technical flaws in
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:27:46 +0100
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I absolutely concur. Considering that exactly _no one_ here
demanded | that ClamAV abandon its capacity for detecting phishing
attacks, little | yellow rubber ducks in PNG images, or whatever else,
the uproar is
Brian Morrison wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Probably more like: can we have 'technical-threats.cvd' and
'non-technical-threats.cvd' instead of 'main.cvd'?
You don't give up do you? ;-)
Not until someone convincingly explains to me why my request for a
practical option to distinguish between
Julian Mehnle wanted us to know:
| To those of you who argue that ClamAV should detect phishing attacks
| even though tools like SpamAssassin are designed and inherently better
Perhaps marketing speak would better suit you. McAffee detects phishing
emails. What better way to give *ALL* AV
Julian Mehnle wrote:
flames that effectively amount to shut up.
Obviously not suggestive enough, though :)
Matt
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
| I absolutely concur. Considering that exactly _no one_ here demanded
| that ClamAV abandon its capacity for detecting phishing attacks,
| little yellow rubber ducks in PNG images, or whatever else, the uproar
| is truly ludicrous. What was actually
Julian Mehnle said:
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
| I absolutely concur. Considering that exactly _no one_ here demanded
| that ClamAV abandon its capacity for detecting phishing attacks,
| little yellow rubber ducks in PNG images, or whatever else, the uproar
| is truly
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Julian Mehnle said:
Well, that is certainly a nice prospect! Thanks a lot for not
ignoring my request.
That was pretty hard to do.
Yeah, people here keep telling me that, though they're not exactly
communicative about why that is. All I've read is _I_ don't need
At 12:43 PM 3/21/2005, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Julian Mehnle said:
Well, that is certainly a nice prospect! Thanks a lot for not
ignoring my request.
That was pretty hard to do.
Yeah, people here keep telling me that, though they're not exactly
communicative about why
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
Julian Mehnle said:
Well, that is certainly a nice prospect! Thanks a lot for not
ignoring my request.
That was pretty hard to do.
Yeah, people here keep telling me that, though they're not exactly
communicative about why that is. All I've read is _I_
Yeah, people here keep telling me that, though they're not exactly
communicative about why that is. All I've read is _I_ don't need what
you are proposing, so shut up or just plain shut up. Little substance,
not very helpful, and certainly no reason for me (or anyone!) to stop
bringing up
Samuel Benzaquen wrote:
I think the problem is simple math: Finite number of devs with finite
time. They have to use it in what they think will be more productive
for the majority of us.
Hey, I'd accept that for a reason, even though I haven't been the only one
who found the feature request
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think the problem is simple math: Finite number of devs with finite
time. They have to use it in what they think will be more productive
for the majority of us.
Hey, I'd accept that for a reason, even though I haven't been the only
one who found the feature
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:06:02 +0100 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julian Mehnle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Probably more like: can we have 'technical-threats.cvd' and
'non-technical-threats.cvd' instead of 'main.cvd'?
You don't give up do you? ;-)
Some people wrote some stuff:
about SPAM or not. Again.
Okay, that's it. I'll unsubscribe. Bye!
--
Steffen Breitbach
Netzbetrieb
Aktuelle Neuigkeiten zur Chamaeleon AG finden Sie
unter http://www.chamaeleon.de
53 matches
Mail list logo
