Bug in SweepViruses.pm?

Julian Field MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Thu Sep 14 19:44:54 IST 2006

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
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

More information about the MailScanner mailing list