[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > 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.
Interesting - that is exactly the opposite of my experiences so I'm interested in knowing more about your content scanning tool. I don't use Perl for this (or anything else) so I'm wondering if that may be a factor. But yes, no point in double-damning a message when once will do, and I guess that was my point, and clearly the most efficient method should be first. dp _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
