Tomasz Kojm wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:00:43 +0200 > Urban Hillebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> We noticed as well the long delay with clamscan (several people have >> reported this here). We are perfectly ok with using clamd + clamdscan - >> however, on our mailgateways clamscan is still there as fallback if clamd >> is not responding (due to a crash or a misconfiguration). >> >> With the newly introduced delays during the initialization of clamscan this >> would cause us significant problems. So my question is: Will this get >> fixed, or is this "working as expected"? > > We're aware of the problem and it will be fixed in 0.91.
Glad to hear, luckily switching to clamdscan does improve things dramatically: # grep processed /var/log/maillog | head -5 Apr 26 00:02:15 Batch (3 messages) processed in 39.21 seconds Apr 26 00:02:29 Batch (8 messages) processed in 37.84 seconds Apr 26 00:02:29 Batch (1 message) processed in 34.33 seconds Apr 26 00:02:33 Batch (1 message) processed in 33.32 seconds Apr 26 00:02:35 Batch (1 message) processed in 37.26 seconds # grep processed /var/log/maillog | tail -5 Apr 26 15:27:46 Batch (1 message) processed in 0.62 seconds Apr 26 15:27:53 Batch (1 message) processed in 1.96 seconds Apr 26 15:27:59 Batch (3 messages) processed in 0.67 seconds Apr 26 15:28:05 Batch (1 message) processed in 0.56 seconds Apr 26 15:28:11 Batch (3 messages) processed in 0.63 seconds Best regards Michael -- _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
