> Brent Kennedy wrote:
> > I use ClamAV and SA too. My understanding is that you do not want to
> > continue processing an email if it is already seen as a virus(saves
> > processing time by the spam server). Keep in mind that some users
> > also have their AV on another box. I also use the shor
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > I think that scanning for viruses is much faster and should be done
> > first, preferrably oustide of SA.
On 04.05.09 11:05, Adam Katz wrote:
> Are you suggesting that ClamAV is faster by an order of magnitude that
> exceeds the massively high ratio of non-virus
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I think that scanning for viruses is much faster and should be done
> first, preferrably oustide of SA.
Are you suggesting that ClamAV is faster by an order of magnitude that
exceeds the massively high ratio of non-virus spam to non-spam
viruses? It's simple math:
On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 10:41:44AM -0400, Jeff Mincy wrote:
>
> Feeding virus email into SpamAssassin Bayes seems like a bad idea to
> me. The bayes tokens aren't going to be all that useful for catching
> non virus spam.
What happens when you receive a virus that isn't detected by any scan
From: Adam Katz
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 18:47:21 -0400
I am under the impression that virus checking is *not* that much easier
than a fully-loaded SA implementation, so therefore spam detection
should run first. Counter-point: online lookups cost bandwidth and
latency, virus de
On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 06:47:21PM -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
>
> I am under the impression that virus checking is *not* that much easier
> than a fully-loaded SA implementation, so therefore spam detection
> should run first. Counter-point: online lookups cost bandwidth and
> latency, virus detect
Brent Kennedy wrote:
> I use ClamAV and SA too. My understanding is that you do not want to
> continue processing an email if it is already seen as a virus(saves
> processing time by the spam server). Keep in mind that some users
> also have their AV on another box. I also use the short circuit
s.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:47 PM
To: Spamassassin Mailing List
Subject: Properly integrating clamAV into SpamAssassin
This lengthy email (sorry) contains three sections:
1. Filtering order (spam, virus vs virus, spam vs spam+virus)
2. SA's use of ClamAV to retain the benefits
This lengthy email (sorry) contains three sections:
1. Filtering order (spam, virus vs virus, spam vs spam+virus)
2. SA's use of ClamAV to retain the benefits in #1
3. SA's use of short-circuiting to reduce frivolous scans
The filtering order that I see recommended all the time is virus
