ANNOUNCE: Beta 4.27.4 released

[Julian Field]

At 14:02 21/02/2004, you wrote:
>Julian Field wrote:
>>G'day all,
>>
>>I have just put 4.27.4 on the website. Note this is a beta release.
>>Download as usual from www.mailscanner.info.
>>
>>You can get the full ChangeLog from here:
>>www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/ChangeLog
>>
>>The new changes since 4.27.3 are mostly:
>>
>>* New Stuff *
>>
>>- Added "Non-Forging Viruses" list which works the opposite way around
>>to the
>>   "Silent Viruses" list. If a virus report contains any words in this
>>list,
>>   then the silent status is over-ridden by this. The net result is
>>that you
>>   can put All-Viruses in the silent viruses list, so that by default no
>>   warnings are sent to senders. But put markers for joke programs or
>>macro
>>   viruses in this list and the senders will still be warned about
>>them, as
>>   they are known not to forge the From address.
>>- Added options to add new headers containing the envelope sender and/or
>>   envelope recipients addresses. The names of the headers are, of course,
>>   configurable.
>>- Much improved clamav-wrapper, courtesy of Kevin Spicer.
>>- Added $subject to Subject: line in sample recipient.spam.report.txt
>>to show
>>   it can be used. Should ideally get all other languages translated.
>>
>>* Fixes *
>>
>>- Exim multiple ACLs now supported for SPF compatibility.
>>--
>>Julian Field
>>www.MailScanner.info
>>Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
>>MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
>>PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
>>
>>
>Julian, realising this is a beta, once this become a gold release -
>knowing that i do not use bayes, dcc, razor etc, and currently have ms
>4.24-5 and sa 2.60 and clamav, bigevil and backhair - is it likely
>(assuming almost default settings) that the newer versions of both
>mailscanner and spam assassin will be far better at catching spam/shitty
>virus email product, compared to my current versions?
>
>I am trying to guess whether its worth upgrading based purely on version
>comparison alone?

I have made some improvements to the attachment-extraction code to make it
more robust, and there _may_ yet be another improvement in this code in the
next few days. So it is better at spotting viruses than previous versions,
but otherwise there are probably not many changes that affect you if you
don't want new features.

My best advice is to read the ChangeLog at
http://www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/ChangeLog
and read all the differences between 4.24 and 4.27 and make your decision
based on that. There is no point in upgrading if you don't need to.
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654