Re: clamav-unofficial-sigs and pyzor

Dianne Skoll <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.mail.mimedefang
Organization Roaring Penguin Software Inc.
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:46:11 +0200
Marcus Schopen <[email protected]> wrote:

> my be a little bit off topic, but are there any experience with the
> efficiency of pyzor and clamav-unofficial-sigs [1].

No comment on pyzor because I don't use it, but some of the
clamav-unofficial-sigs are useful.  We use the following data sets:

   phish.ndb
   rogue.hdb
   sanesecurity.ftm
   winnow_malware.hdb
   winnow_malware_links.ndb

We find the others have unacceptably-high false-positive rates, and
even the ones above occasionally get a bad signature that produces annoying
false-positives.

Regards,

Dianne.
_______________________________________________
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.