MailScanner 101, take two.

David While David.While at UCE.AC.UK
Fri Jul 4 08:51:55 IST 2003

They updated the DB twice yesterday (3 July). I guess the update frequency is determined by the virus writers - you only update the signatures when a new virus outbreak occurs.
David While

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Kevin Miller [mailto:Kevin_Miller at CI.JUNEAU.AK.US] 
	Sent: Thu 03/07/2003 19:09 
	Subject: Re: MailScanner 101, take two.

	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?
	Kevin Miller                Registered Linux User No: 307357
	CBJ MIS Dept.               Network Systems Administrator, Mail
	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
	>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
	>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:
	>/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?

More information about the MailScanner mailing list