Dennis Peterson wrote:
> It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to scanning
> for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has
> failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to
> know.
The reverse is also true. There is no point in spam scanning a file if it has
been identified as a virus.
Of the two processes (spam scanning and virus scanning), spam scanning is more
resource-intensive (at least the way I do it) - so I virus scan first, and
spam-scan second.
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
