Which AV is right :) ?

Christiaan den Besten chris at scorpion.nl
Thu Aug 12 18:03:16 IST 2004


fyi: Most people don't like html-formatted mail :) ... please use plain ....

I am not asking which virus checked is 'better' at finding virusses.
Offcourse, running more than one virus checker if you have a. the money, b.
the (cpu) resources is (probably) always better :)

My question is more directed to the level of depth Clam and F-Prot dive into
a message to see if it contains a virus. In this case the 'bounce' message
contained a virus in de body-text. So .. Peter already answered that there
are clients who can still 'run' the virus conceiled in such a body, so the
virus-checker should at least dig as deep into a message as any client would
be able to do.

Therefore I am wondering if we should change the way Clam does checking on a
message ... or perhaps increase the depth of mime-decoding MailScanner does
before handing it over to the virus scanner ...



        From: Jay Ehrhart [mailto:yoloits at ycoe.org]

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

More information about the MailScanner mailing list