[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

clamav-unofficial-sigs_3.7.1-1~bpo60+1_amd64.changes is NEW



(new) clamav-unofficial-sigs_3.7.1-1~bpo60+1.debian.tar.gz extra utils
(new) clamav-unofficial-sigs_3.7.1-1~bpo60+1.dsc extra utils
(new) clamav-unofficial-sigs_3.7.1-1~bpo60+1_all.deb extra utils
update script for 3rd-party clamav signatures
 This package provides a script for updating the following sources of
 3rd-party clamav signatures until freshclamav gains support for such
 signatures.
 .
 The SaneSecurity/OITC signatures provide detection of phishing, spear
 phishing, fake lottery, ecard malware, casino, fake jobs, fake loans,
 419s, fake diplomas, porn, emailed malware and other general spam.
 .
 MSRBL signatures provide detection of image spam and general spam.
 .
 SecuriteInfo signatures provide various badware signatures,
 securiteinfo.com honeypot signatures, honeynet.cz signatures
 and French anti-spam signatures
 .
 MalwarePatrol provides detection of mail containing URLs to malware.
Changes: clamav-unofficial-sigs (3.7.1-1~bpo60+1) squeeze-backports; urgency=low
 .
  * Rebuild for squeeze-backports.
 .
clamav-unofficial-sigs (3.7.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
  * New upstream release
    - Fixes a minor bashism in the sig creation option (Closes: #547743)
    - Drops MSRBL signature, no updates since July 2009 (Closes: #612796)
    - Supports new uncompressed SecuriteInfo signatures (Closes: #612795)
  * Allow sysadmins to easily override default configs (Closes: #566620)
  * Package technically complies with policy 3.9.1, bump Standards-Version


Override entries for your package:

Announcing to debian-backports-changes@lists.debian.org


Your package contains new components which requires manual editing of
the override file.  It is ok otherwise, so please be patient.  New
packages are usually added to the override file about once a week.

You may have gotten the distribution wrong.  You'll get warnings above
if files already exist in other distributions.
her distributions.


Reply to: