--- Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:39 PM 5/12/2005, email builder wrote: > > >Why would that help? If amavis/clam CPU usage with .80 is lower than with > >.84 (and .83 for me), then the problem seems to point right at clam > (unless > >the OP upgraded amavis or whatever). > > > >Your response is more of *another* idea rather than a fix/solution, but > that > >said, I'd be curious if you can point to any docs online of how to run > clam > >thru something like Postfix. > > clamd is the preferred scanner to use with amavis, reported to be faster > and use less memory. > Configure your amavis to use clamd instead.
Instead of what? My post (not sure about the OP), was specifically in reference to amavis and the fact that an upgrade of clam (and not amavis) showed more CPU usage on average. The person I replied to mentioned removing Perl intermediaries, which is why I asked if there was a specific suggestion that was faster than amavis. However, as far as we can tell here, clam upgrades are what have taken more and more CPU. > If you want to use clam directly from postfix, check into: > http://memberwebs.com/nielsen/software/clamsmtp/ Huh, not sure it's worth it, but thanks! __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
