On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 13:53, seth vidal wrote:
> The clamav peopel do their own definitions. I think you are
using too
> old experiences/biases for your side of the argument. I think that if
> you spent a week or so studying it.. you could come up with much better
> arguments.
My arguments are based on the relative success the people I've worked
with have had with clamav actually screening newer viruses.
Sorry I was going for humour.. it failed. I think that the 90% rule for
doing email virus scanning would be better handled by including
something like mimedefang. I am trying to figure out the Fedora
packaging rules to see what changes would be needed to make Roaring
Penguins package work with it.
> Hmmm... just because samba and other windows tools have been
there for X
> years in the distro.. should they remain there? I actually consider this
> a legit question.
sure, go for it, remove them, oh, except that nautilus uses them, oh and
smbfs mounting in the kernel. hmm and what else?
Well then that would be a reason to keep it. Just trying to figure out
what cruft could go.
--
Stephen John Smoogen smoogen(a)lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Lab CCN-5 Sched 5/40 PH: 4-0645
Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --