Quoting Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > clamscan has a purpose. As others have also said - YMMV. A very lightly > loaded mailserver (~100 msgs/day) shouldn't have a lot of problems with > clamscan. At least not with the 0.88.x version.
We've been using it, and deliver hundreds of thousands of messages a day. So it can be done. That is with 0.88 and with 0.90.2 and 0.90.3. > So for anyone upgrading clamav from 0.88.7 to 0.90, the sudden massive > drop in performance (about 50% slower scan times, 10-20 times slower > startup times for clamd and clamscan) would come as a surprise. The > release notes of the 0.90 version of clamav unfortunately fail to > mention that performance problem. I'm not sure the authors knew about the drastic performance change until after it was released (though I could be wrong there). > (To be fair - the scan times have been fixed since 0.90.2 (or 0.90.3 for > some platforms), and the startup time appears to be fixed in 0.91rc1. > Kudos to the delopers for recognising one of the roots of all evil). Agreed. > So I don't think it's mimedefang that should label the clamscan > method as "not for production use". It is always up to the user to decide if a pre-1.0 release is ready for production release. The user must except that there will be problems with releases in a pre-1.0 software, whether performance or backwards compatability or other such problems. Having said that, it is some of the best pre-1.0 code I've ever used! -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
