Eric Rostetter wrote: > Quoting Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> Not exactly. But I did say that I am using it in production. Now, if it >>> is a good way or not, that is a subjective matter. >> Not exactly - it is measurable. And it is really bad. > > No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on your available resources. And in > my opinion, with my resources, it is tolerable. Your milage may vary.
Sorry, no. For any particular machine you can measure the performance of each clamav client and you will get distinctly different performance figures. Clamscan has a startup penalty not found in clamdscan, and while the newest version of clamscan is faster at loading the db files, it is not zero seconds. What is subjective is how one responds to the data. In my case I pass file pointers to clamd from a continuously running milter so there is no startup cost at all. Short of compiling the Clamav libraries straight into the milter as is done with clamav-milter, I don't know of a faster way to scan incoming mail in real time while the connection is still made with the client MTA. If you are waiting until after the MTA has accepted the message but before the handing it LDA to scan then performance is less important. Anyway, you're happy so I'm happy :). dp _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
