> > Well yes although this is true your accuracy goes out the > door. The problem > > with clamd is that the built in mime parser is really bad > and it also does > > not do a good job of unpacking attachments even if you have > the flag set to > > scan mail. > > These problems were fixed a while ago. Don't know what you > are running, but > we're running 0.80 clamav-milter with clamd, no unpacking > problems, and > I would say with as much confidence as possible that nothing > gets by it.
I have to agree. I've been running ClamAV as our primary scanner with F-Prot behind it for a couple months. I had a couple of worms get through to F-Prot one day-- most likely F-Prot got their definition update out before Clam did. Overall, Clam seems to be catching more than F-Prot did. I state that based on the number of messages that get rejected based on attachment type. That's been much less since implementing ClamAV as the scanner. Bret
