From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Mar 23 10:16:29 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23B7AB437C for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:16:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B8819C5 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:16:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id CE575AB437B; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF92AB437A for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:16:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6763819C4 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:16:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id l68so188532986wml.0 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 03:16:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=ebqfcHrsHsOXzUB0EZUkiUkSbLBrt72jM4U40YeD2X4=; b=zLBGRcrEl9KBiBtBzWX9uOUDyIGp2jMerVUikDGMBNtw97eVwND4qw5mnNi46z+ot3 aJ5Ywd8bnRkpkeuwo7fkxUDqEC2tegHG6pK53xQBElH+s/H5XCy9P29Q4aDPBVwiOZ5+ 00i7Kok+fDbjb/DlHncsluFEP8BMrSNBwrci5N7ViX3aBGyS6aYPKmxf+NC19C6OLW9c 6XgDg+Dq4tzEIxmA+U+8PQxkuMnv8wquymcP6B1jUXThIMV/PTP2H1K4dTgzGP+amJyE yg5tgLMksD4zcnXZ283TWcDE5IUIipChk0kSwTJDOD5sX/34EVzJDnDGObmW+nhJwz4a Nj2g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=ebqfcHrsHsOXzUB0EZUkiUkSbLBrt72jM4U40YeD2X4=; b=PWOVSk8Zti3hIUBeUkQub2cVbLGHRqnsyIOkojuYJhPTq9zzi2kVOO6IEbHw6ocezz qTxO1ud/ESNwOqJntjgawjM0pI516ufPKn1w2YdvjsQ32deL2XeyGmCGmFNgd2NJqD8u IXQHlfHadPxTTJmiJazEx3pNw2POlyJ6VTHD067XYnWhmAtJMAfZL3hzytxV0Xiquikg vXCbKZgHaAk/lwPyRMftFe0qGLUOOnNrPSwbdhvs0JFB2O3wqhxwIiN92rLX1N6e+Gje GzAmZyCYPwOX6JfR93ztse2FMa63dyTh6PkSrmfe9SmVnhZmHFLO/axO51ZKGL4L3GQv e9rA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJILZx8cGzXp6cVsSYpTvAxFd0/A0W93DPgO2yMfbiAt1PUs0naVmAZCRgbRiF2d36mKYrwvwv5DA/P3dA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.54.19 with SMTP id d19mr25651666wma.30.1458728186721; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 03:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.46.68 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 03:16:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1458712914.1578.37.camel@au.dyndns.ws> References: <1458712914.1578.37.camel@au.dyndns.ws> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:16:26 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Anti-virus for FreeBSD From: krad To: Wayne Sierke Cc: Olivier Nicole , questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.21 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:16:30 -0000 I terms of mail you are not limited to unix bases solutions. Exim for example as the ability to pass the mail to a host:port for scanning. That means you are not limited via os and therefore av vendor. On 23 March 2016 at 06:01, Wayne Sierke wrote: > On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 09:07 +0000, krad wrote: > > > Other than that clamav > > is good enough. > > I'm curious as to whether that's an objective or subjective view? > > I've got clam-av set up on a couple of mail boxes scanning incoming > messages and find a worrying amount of viral content still gets > through. Even after submitting false-negative reports, manual tests > conducted (days!) later have failed to detect them. > > To be fair, some of that also fails to be detected initially by > commercial AV scanners on MS Windows. However in one instance, for > example, one AV provider had an update deployed and distributed less > than two hours after they were notified. > > I've submitted suspect attachments to the Virus-Total web site to find > that it was already submitted previously, sometimes long ago, and clam- > av is listed with a negative detection result. > >