dhawal at NETMAGICSOLUTIONS.COM
Fri Feb 11 14:06:00 GMT 2005
[ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Pete Russell wrote:
> Of course i am usijng clamav already.
> My question was is it worth the effort to have both? Does BD ever catch
> a virus not caught by clamav?
twice in ~3000 mails.. I am ASSUMING that this was due to the fact the
clam was probably being updated at that time (thereby creating a lock
asking MS not to use it).
Also in the same result, thrice did uvscan detect a virus when both clam
/ bdc failed to detect it.
Again in the same result, 10 times clam detected a virus when both
uvscan / bdc failed to detect it (all attributed to phishing detection).
So this contradicts my previous statement that clam detects more viruses
compared to uvscan.
Some statistics for viruses detected over a period of 12 hours that you
might find interesting.
------------------------ 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).
Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
More information about the MailScanner