('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) Sergey,

[This is way off topic so this is my last email about Dr. Web]

I never received your e-mail so I am responding using another post.

[snipped]

> > GH> Dr. Web's database only detects around 29K viruses and it depends
> heavily on heuristics.
> > GH> This is a problem since over 75K known viruses exist.
> >
> > Hmmm, You wrong again. DrWeb database contain a 30k VIRUSFOUNDING
> > RECORDS. But some of records able to detect whole family of some
> > viruses (10 and more viruses). It's common mistake, that 1 record
> > detect 1 virus. In most case 1 record == N viruses. I think, that
> VirusBulletin
> > does not award DrWeb with 6 VB100% in last two year if DrWeb
> > was able detects only 30k viruses from 75k. :)
> > (Source: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table,
> > looks DialogueScience entry).

The Virus Bulletin tests have nothing to do with quantity of viruses in the database. They are used for only detecting the latest viruses. See the introduction. http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/ So it is possible to build a virus scanner that just detects the "wildlist" and get a VB 100% award.

> > I believe, that no one of av-vendor cannot answer "How much viruses is
> > known by their product".

Sophos does.
Symantec does.
Others also...

> > GH> Dr. Web is not a bad product but the virus database is to small
> compared to other products for the same or less cost.

-- 
---
Graham Hillstomer II
Senior System Admin *BSD, HP-UX, Solaris
High Availability / Quality of Service Response Team Leader
ghillstomerpostmaster.co.uk
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]