>thanks. i suspect my invocation needs to be different - when i switch from >clamscan to clamdscan, messages are processed - for example - rather than >taking 10 seconds, 20 seconds, etc with clamscan, they claim 'ok' in .1 >seconds, .7 seconds, etc - which doesn't seem possible.
Actually, that's exactly the point, and sounds about right.
Try scanning something with a virus, using clamdscan, and ensure that it finds it.
yup, just tested it with the eicar test file. amazing. i'm blown away. all this time i thought i was getting a bruising on resource usage, and with the addition of a single 'd' into my qmail-scanner-queue.pl, instead of my two servers running at a 14 load average constantly, they're running at like .45.
this should perhaps be better documented. there's only two mentions of clamdscan in the docs, under 'testing' - nothing under 'configuration', and there's no details about actually using one or the other.
Paul Theodoropoulos http://www.anastrophe.com
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
