After getting some help from Declude support yesterday, I am much more pleased with it. The number of vulnerabilities held that should have been deleted by JM are down dramatically. I return 2-3 msgs a day to the queue, but now don't have to wade through 100's to get there. Also I feel that I am AV scanning fewer emails than before turning AVAFTERJM on. Example: on a daily volume of 25,000 +- msgs, 14,000 +- are deleted by JM, 80-100 viruses are stopped. Before those 14,000 spams would have been AV scanned. It has to save resources.
I think it depends on how much you hold as opposed to deleting, how bad is your spam problem is compared to virus problem, etc. My volume/clientele/needs are different than others. For now I'm staying with AVAFTERJM. John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 4:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] AV After Junkmail How many people are running this "AVAFTERJM ON". Also, I am curious to see what your experience with this has been. Besides being careful about returning messages to the queue was there any other downsides? Darrell ----------------------------------------------------------- invURIBL - Intelligent URI Filtering. Stops 85%+ of SPAM with the default configuration. Try it out - http://www.invariantsystems.com --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
