In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jef moskot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. You can also detect the daemon's failure and fall back to clamscan in real time, getting the best of both worlds. On my server, if I detect a clamd failure, I fall back to running clamscan in a loop that pauses 10 seconds at a time to let a few messages build up before clamscan runs (in other words, to avoid relaunching clamscan for every message) I haven't seen a clamd failure in many moons though, so I'm not sure the added complexity is worth it. -- Dave Warren, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: (403) 775-1700 / (888) 300-3480 _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
