MailScanner 101, take two.

[Kevin Miller]

Thanks.  Earlier posts (month or two ago I think) indicated that they
weren't the quickest off the line with updates, but one or two posts isn't a
very big statistical sample!  So, how satisfied have you ClamAV users been
with the pattern updates?  Do they come in in a timely fashion?

TIA...

...Kevin
-------------------
Kevin Miller                Registered Linux User No: 307357
CBJ MIS Dept.               Network Systems Administrator, Mail
Administrator
155 South Seward Street     ph: (907) 586-0242
Juneau, Alaska 99801        fax: (907 586-4500


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Bonivart [mailto:peter at UCGBOOK.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:21 AM
>To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>Subject: Re: MailScanner 101, take two.
>
>
>For AV you could always use ClamAV that is completely free.
>Recent posts
>on the list has it that CA eTrust is legit to run with a $28
>workstation
>license. That might also be interesting.
>
>ClamAV scans faster than F-Prot in my tests. It's also covered by
>MailScanners signature-updating script but you should update
>the program
>from time to time. But you can forget about the check instead! :)
>
>Check this for more info:
>
>http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/install/OS-virus-sca
>n-web.htm
>
>/Peter Bonivart
>
>--Unix lovers do it in the Sun
>
>Kevin Miller wrote:
>
>> For the antivirus I got a copy of F-Prot, but then they
>changed the license.
>> Aargh.  A grand more to do the same thing.  So I'm looking
>at a different
>> antivirus solution now, probably RAV.  I don't mind paying for
>> support/updates and I thought the original $300 F-prot cost was quite
>> reasonable, but the new scheme isn't exactly competitive.
>Does RAV auto
>> update both the signatures and the program?  I want
>something I can put in
>> and ignore until it's time to send 'em another check in a
>year.  A friend is
>> using Sophos, and he says he has to put in a new user
>license quarterly or
>> some such.  Life's too short for that.  All the docs seem to refer to
>> installing Sophos as a step however.  Can I presume that I
>can substitute
>> whatever flavor of antivirus there and *not* have to install Sophos?
>