On Jun 18, 2007, at 12:19 PM, jef moskot wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote: >> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email. > > I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given > that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail. > Neither is > entirely ideal, but we should take the wide variety of environments > into > account. > > Maybe the default recommendation should be clamdscan, but clamscan > is not > an unreasonable choice in certain circumstances.
Note that some of the systems which interface between ClamAV and the MTA, such as Amavisd-new, will use a connection to clamd by preference, but will fall back to invoking clamscan as a secondary scanner if the primary connection to clamd ever fails. In general, the machines which I am running ClamAV on seem to have no problems keeping both clamd and freshclam up and running for months at a time, so if you are experiencing clamd failing often, it's possibly a sign of hardware issues like bad RAM, poor cooling, or a dying/marginal power-supply unit.... -- -Chuck _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
