Re: clamav-unofficial-sigs and pyzor
Richard Laager <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.mimedefang |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 09/19/2016 12:46 AM, Marcus Schopen wrote: > my be a little bit off topic, but are there any experience with the > efficiency of pyzor and clamav-unofficial-sigs We use clamav-unofficial-sigs. If clamd triggers, it's a hard fail for us, regardless of whether it was a virus or spam rule. We do differentiate them for logging and SMTP rejection messages. I can't say how much spam would have been blocked anyway by later processing (e.g. SpamAssassin), but we have very few (but non-zero over the years) false positives. And in our filter, whitelisting does not bypass this test; maybe it should, but that's the current setup. -- Richard _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang