On Thursday 17 Mar 2005 14:32, Nabin Limbu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the difference between using clamd only and clamd + clamav-milter
> with
> mailserver. What additional benefits do we get while using clamav-milter.
Security. On some platforms it will be more secure to have clamav-milter do
th
Todd Lyons said:
> Dennis Peterson wanted us to know:
>
>>> Of the two processes (spam scanning and virus scanning), spam scanning
>>> is
>>> more resource-intensive (at least the way I do it) - so I virus scan
>>> first, and spam-scan second.
>>Interesting - that is exactly the opposite of my expe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wanted us to know:
>> When a milter is configured to reject at the SMTP level, it never gets
>> to the second milter in the chain. So if clamav-milter detects a
>> virus, the CPU intensive content scanning process never sees the
>> message (hence much lower load).
>Your site pol
Todd Lyons wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wanted us to know:
>> But yes, no point in double-damning a message when once will do, and
>> I guess that was my point, and clearly the most efficient method
>> should be first.
>
> When a milter is configured to reject at the SMTP level, it never gets
> to the
Dennis Peterson wanted us to know:
>> Of the two processes (spam scanning and virus scanning), spam scanning is
>> more resource-intensive (at least the way I do it) - so I virus scan
>> first, and spam-scan second.
>Interesting - that is exactly the opposite of my experiences so I'm
>interested i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to
>> scanning
>> for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has
>> failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to
>> know.
>
> The reverse i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wanted us to know:
>Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to scanning
>> for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has
>> failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to
>> know.
>The r
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to scanning
> for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has
> failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to
> know.
The reverse is also true. There is no point in
Nabin Limbu said:
> Hi,
>
> What is the difference between using clamd only and clamd + clamav-milter
> with
> mailserver. What additional benefits do we get while using clamav-milter.
>
> Regards
> Nabin Limbu
The milter is the component that communicates with both the smtp server
and the clamav
> Hi,
>
> What is the difference between using clamd only and clamd + clamav-milter
> with
> mailserver. What additional benefits do we get while using clamav-milter.
>
Clamav-milter is a "milter" interface for sendmail. Although not the only
way to interface clam with a host running sendmail, it
Hi,
What is the difference between using clamd only and clamd + clamav-milter with
mailserver. What additional benefits do we get while using clamav-milter.
Regards
Nabin Limbu
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
11 matches
Mail list logo
