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
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 followin
On 09/19/2016 01:48 AM, Marcus Schopen wrote:
> Did you activate all signatures
> or just e.g. sanesecurity sigs? I read activating all signatures turns
> clamav into an evil memory monster, while only activating sanesecurity
> sigs catches most and doesn't need that much resources.
I don't adjust
Hi Richard,
Am Montag, den 19.09.2016, 01:23 -0500 schrieb Richard Laager:
> On 09/19/2016 12:46 AM, Marcus Schopen wrote:
> > my be a little bit off topic, but are there any experience with the
> > efficiency of pyzor and clamav-unofficial-sigs
>
> We use clamav-unofficial-sigs. If clamd trigger
On 09/19/2016 12:46 AM, Marcus Schopen wrote:
> my be a little bit off topic, but are there any experience with the
> efficiency of pyzor and clamav-unofficial-sigs
We use clamav-unofficial-sigs. If clamd triggers, it's a hard fail for
us, regardless of whether it was a virus or spam rule. We do
d
5 matches
Mail list logo