Bug in SweepViruses.pm?

[Julian Field]

Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 14/09/06, Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> How about I use the minimum value of all the counters from the different
>> virus scanners?
> And what would that mean? Not sure that would be good at all:-).
>
>> How do we define what this number represents?
>> Maybe it's best to use the maximum value of all the counters, as this
>> will hopefully reflect the number of different viruses found, regardless
>> of their name?
>>
>> That sounds good to me.
>> What do you think?
> Yep, that one gets my vote:).

In which case, find the line that is changed by the patch (patch files 
are easily human-readable) and change it to this:
  $$rCounter = $Counter if $Counter>$$rCounter; # Set up output value
This will make it use the maximum of the different numbers of viruses 
found by the AV packages.

-- 
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
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


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
For all your IT requirements visit www.transtec.co.uk