> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas > > 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.
On 03.01.09 17:37, Bazooka Joe wrote: > 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. You should learn - how to properly reply an e-mail (first remove useles crap) - that sbl-xbl is obsolete and soon may stop working (zen.spamhaus.org now does the job) The rest is up to you. I was just comenting the fact that ClamAV does NOT eat more cpu power than SA. And I guess that since you use one machine for SA but run ClamavAV everywhere, you should imho spare CPU on SA machine by first using clamav, then sending to SA scanner.. -- 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. We are but packets in the Internet of life (userfriendly.org)
