[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [clamav-users] Clamav and qmail - your experiences and
opinions
> Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:49:28 PM, Tomasz wrote:
>
> >> - not require a recompilation of qmail (would supply a qmail-queue
> >&
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:49:28 PM, Tomasz wrote:
> qmail + qmail-scanner - modified to use clamdscan instead of clamscan
> should work fine.
One more thing, Tomek. I've searched through the archives but I did
not find any information about how to perform this modification. Was
this ever discu
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 8:29:51 PM, Cory wrote:
This is getting a bit offtopic, but I hope you won't mind...
> Applying the QMAILQUEUE patch is extremely easy and simple.
> cd qmail-1.03
> wget http://qmail.org/qmailqueue-patch
> patch < qmailqueue-patch
OK I tried it again and it worked this
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 20:01, Tomasz Nidecki wrote:
> Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:11:27 PM, Jeffrey wrote:
>
> > I found that Postfix, amavis-new, and clamav ran fine on a 133MHz 486
> > with 40MB RAM. I get 300-500 messages/weekday.
>
> Hmm, so it's not that bad - I have a Pentium MMX 166 so it
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:49:28 PM, Tomasz wrote:
>> - not require a recompilation of qmail (would supply a qmail-queue
>> script which would call the scanner and then the original qmail-queue)
>>
>> - take little memory, be streamlined and fast.
> qmail + qmail-scanner - modified to use cla
Wednesday, March 12, 2003, 7:11:27 PM, Jeffrey wrote:
> I found that Postfix, amavis-new, and clamav ran fine on a 133MHz 486
> with 40MB RAM. I get 300-500 messages/weekday.
Hmm, so it's not that bad - I have a Pentium MMX 166 so it should be
allright (and I must expand my RAM soon anyways).
-
