On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> 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? > > -- > Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ > Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. > Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 >
I do it the exact other way. Virii and phish is less than 1% of the spam. I blacklist first (sbl-xbl) then SA and 550 reject anything above a score of 5 then clamav via clamav-milter. Having said that, I have had to move SA to a dedicated box that now does filtering for several servers. I still run clamav on each machine.
