Thankx I feel this because my CPU consumption goes up when clamav is working. However, Im testing solution you givme.
Thankx On Saturday 03 January 2009 17:10:25 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run > > >> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there. > > > > RobertH wrote: > > > why do the opposite of the logical? > > On 03.01.09 17:42, Matt Kettler wrote: > > Apparently the OP feels that clamav is heavy-weight enough to be worth > > shortcircuiting before it. I'd disagree myself, and do it the way Justin > > does (clamav first and shortcircuit everything else). > > I also agree clamav is more lightweight than SA. I run clamav-milter, (runs > before spamass-milter). Since I don't want/need viruses nor phishes, I am > happy to drop them. > > This issue was already discussed some time ago. I don't know where do these > informations come from. > > Luis, could you explain where did you get the feeling that ClamAV takes > more CPU time than SpamAssassin?
