I have read on/in a Clam* web site (I am using the term Clam* as I use ClamWin not ClamAV but as I understand they use the same detection engine and I have read so many sites and links over the last few days I cant remember which ones are which) that they dont use the very old sigs so far out of date to not be viable, now I 'spose that could count for the low score, if you are testing a scanner that will scan for every sig ever, against one that just uses the ones that are needed i.e. in the wild for the last few years, then I could see some correlation in the low scores, and also what makes it that much faster that the others I have used.

I did read the Clouseau post, that was why I said that I had never seen any of the problems he says it has, and I thought that there had not been a test with it but he says that it rates so bad, but then he does have his own product to sell.

I also could not find on the F-Prot site a lists of the commercial and non commercial support that F-Prot has like http://www.clamav.net/commercial.html I would have thought if all of those companies are using this AV that 'sucks' so much for the desktop (not my words, his) then there would be a lot more problems with it.

All I can say is I use it on computers connected to the interweeb 24/7 (and they are not kept updated to the last second) and have not ever had any viral problems since running it, but then I must just be lucky.

I will be asking the ClamWin and ClamAV people why they did not want this tested with the others... if that really is the case, unless the e-mail (or what ever) wants to be posted ?