Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2 (solved)

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:49:26 +0200 Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Rene, > > thx a bunch for sending the patch as attachment off the list. Works like > a charm, performance is well back. ;-) Seem it was indeed the patch just > got garbled on the list, as thought. > > Best r

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2 (solved)

René Berber wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Michael Heiming wrote: > > | clamav-wrapper is the same file from the latest MS, the SweepViruses.pm > | patched applied cleanly after editing out some garbled text. So I gues > | it is just the same with the clamav-wrappe

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Michael Heiming wrote: | clamav-wrapper is the same file from the latest MS, the SweepViruses.pm | patched applied cleanly after editing out some garbled text. So I gues | it is just the same with the clamav-wrapper patch, though I can't find | what

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

Michael Heiming wrote: > Michael Heiming wrote: >> René Berber wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> Michael Heiming wrote: >>> >>> | Tests show pretty bad performance with 0.90.2 and clamscan. Running >>> | Mailscanner it seems not trivial to switch to clamd, >>> >

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

Randal, Phil wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Michael Heiming wrote: >>> René Berber wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Michael Heiming wrote: > Tests show pretty bad performance with 0.90.2 and clamscan. Running > Mailscanner it seems not tr

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Michael Heiming wrote: >> René Berber wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> Michael Heiming wrote: >>> Tests show pretty bad performance with 0.90.2 and clamscan. Running Mailscanner it seems not trivial to switch to clamd, >>>

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

Michael Heiming wrote: > René Berber wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> Michael Heiming wrote: >> >> | Tests show pretty bad performance with 0.90.2 and clamscan. Running >> | Mailscanner it seems not trivial to switch to clamd, >> >> It is trivial, just change lib/c

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

René Berber wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Michael Heiming wrote: > > | Tests show pretty bad performance with 0.90.2 and clamscan. Running > | Mailscanner it seems not trivial to switch to clamd, > > It is trivial, just change lib/clamav-wrapper and > lib/MailSca

Re: [Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Michael Heiming wrote: | Tests show pretty bad performance with 0.90.2 and clamscan. Running | Mailscanner it seems not trivial to switch to clamd, It is trivial, just change lib/clamav-wrapper and lib/MailScanner/SweepViruses.pm; I include my chan

[Clamav-users] Terrible performance with 0.90.2

Hi! Tests show pretty bad performance with 0.90.2 and clamscan. Running Mailscanner it seems not trivial to switch to clamd, which might although have other shortcomings in terms of Mailscanner not knowing if it is running. The patch provided on the clamav-devel list seems to improve things,