From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 13 19:26:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD7616A4CE for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out009.verizon.net (out009pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.131]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF3D43D39 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:26:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([68.160.247.127]) by out009.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040414020419.ONS29216.out009.verizon.net@mac.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:04:19 -0500 Message-ID: <407C9C7A.9070304@mac.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:05:46 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Updegrove References: <407C61FA.8070701@updegrove.net> In-Reply-To: <407C61FA.8070701@updegrove.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out009.verizon.net from [68.160.247.127] at Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:04:19 -0500 cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: current qmail-scanner port with clamav and f-prot fails on 4testvirus.org messages X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:26:54 -0000 Rick Updegrove wrote: > The current qmail-scanner port with clamav and f-prot both scanning for > viruses fails on 4 of the testvirus.org messages. > > #20, #21, #23, and #25 > All get through and land in my inbox. > > portupgrade -rva says I am all up to date. > > A virus scanner that only stops *some* of the older viruses is um... > silly? Ok it is not really silly, but it hardly seems worth the effort > to maintain a port that has to be manually patched etc. At least in the case of ClamAV, one ought to run freshclam on a regular basis, and the port provides a daemon which will keep your definitions up-to-date automaticly. If your complaint is that neither vendor's most recent definitions fail to catch some known viruses, that's a different problem, which you should discuss with the vendors directly, since that has little to do with FreeBSD ports. -- -Chuck