Yeah, generally speaking, I can up to 300-400 GB a day.
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 14:30 +, Rob MacGregor wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2008 1:42 PM, Brandon Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hrm, why is clamdscan faster than clamscan?
>
> Lack of startup time overhead (as clamd is already running), thou
On Jan 18, 2008 1:42 PM, Brandon Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hrm, why is clamdscan faster than clamscan?
Lack of startup time overhead (as clamd is already running), though
I'd expect that to be fairly static and probably largely irrelevant
for large (multi GB) scans.
--
Hrm, why is clamdscan faster than clamscan?
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 15:35 +0800, zamri wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 6:20 AM, Brandon Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I use ClamAV to scan computers in the shop I work in and have compared
> > it with Norton (not using the --remove argument) and i
On Jan 15, 2008 6:20 AM, Brandon Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use ClamAV to scan computers in the shop I work in and have compared
> it with Norton (not using the --remove argument) and in most cases it
> has had a much higher detection rate, but much slower than Norton (about
> 3x longer)
I use ClamAV to scan computers in the shop I work in and have compared
it with Norton (not using the --remove argument) and in most cases it
has had a much higher detection rate, but much slower than Norton (about
3x longer).
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 15:27 -0600, Matt Forbis wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
Hello all,
I am curious as to whether there has been any recent comparison of ClamAV's
virus detection against the wildlist (www.wildlist.org). Granted, the latest
wildlist is from October 2007, but it would be interesting to see the results
as several vendors use their wildlist detection as
