RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-13 Thread Dallas Engelken
age- > From: Tren Blackburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:17 AM > To: Dallas Engelken > Subject: RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation > > > Hi Dallas; > > I'm not sure if this is of any help at all, but I found

RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-13 Thread Dallas Engelken
> -Original Message- > From: Johan Kuuse - Red Antigua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:32 AM > To: Dallas Engelken > Subject: Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation > > > Very interesting discussion. > Anyon

RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-11 Thread Dallas Engelken
> -Original Message- > From: Dallas Engelken > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:27 PM > To: Rick Romero; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rick Romero [

RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-11 Thread Paul Fries
Behalf Of Dallas Engelken Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:27 PM To: Rick Romero; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation > -Original Message- > From: Rick Romero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:28 PM >

RE: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-11 Thread Dallas Engelken
> -Original Message- > From: Rick Romero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation > > > On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 13:05, Ryan Finnie wrote:

Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-11 Thread Rick Romero
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 13:05, Ryan Finnie wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, D.Monroe wrote: > > By far, the biggest "hit" (running just Q-S) is likely due to the > > overhead of the perl interpreter and the perlscan body/attachment searches. > > I've been thinking about that... there's not much you c

Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-11 Thread Ryan Finnie
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, D.Monroe wrote: > By far, the biggest "hit" (running just Q-S) is likely due to the > overhead of the perl interpreter and the perlscan body/attachment searches. I've been thinking about that... there's not much you can do about the overhead for decompiling the messages bef

Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]Expected Performance Degradation

2003-03-11 Thread D.Monroe
John Rowan wrote: without qmailscanner: approximately 6,000 messages per minute with only qmailscanner: approximately 430 messages per minute with qmailscanner and clamscan: approximately 150 messages per minute with qmailscanner, clamscan and spamass: approximately 100 messages per minute Inter