On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> I feel there are good reasons to run clamscan instead of another option,
> and I feel that one can indeed do so if they have sufficient
> resources...
For perspective, in my environment we'd be talking about a database load
time of less than a couple se
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Rudd
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:10 AM
> To: ClamAV users ML
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow
>
[...]
>
> That, or mail servers that scan their email in bulk
Quoting Henrik Krohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:45:30PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>>
>> if you have sufficient system resources, and are willing to
>> tolerate slow delivery times (up to 4 minutes on my system, with clamscan
>> on 0.90.3 for example).
>
> I'm just amaze
Quoting Henrik Krohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Good for you. As the email flow could be made much more efficient with a
> simple addition of letter "d", I'm a bit confused in this matter.
So now you know what software I run, and that it would support that change?
And you know it would make it not o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
John Rudd wrote:
[snip]
> That, or mail servers that scan their email in bulk batches (like those
> using mailscanner), where the latency of starting clamscan is MUCH
> smaller than the latency in going through clamd (I've timed both under
> mails
