Re: clamav-unofficial-sigs and pyzor

Marcus Schopen <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.mail.mimedefang
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Am Montag, den 19.09.2016, 08:36 -0400 schrieb Dianne Skoll:
> 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.

Dianne and Richard, thanks for your feedback! I will get those a try.

Ciao
Marcus


_______________________________________________
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.