Bit Defender

Dhawal Doshy 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?
> Pete

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.

Bitdefender: 2992
ClamAV: 3075
McAfee: 3065

- dhawal

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ ( and
the archives (

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!

More information about the MailScanner mailing list