f-prot and tmpfs ( was Re: incoming directory)

[Julian Field]

At 17:58 12/12/2002, you wrote:
>Nerijus Baliunas wrote:
>>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:10:33 +0000 Julian Field
>><mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
>>>By putting the directories into a ramdisk, you are forcing the OS to use a
>>>fixed amount of ram for this. In general, it is better to leave the OS to
>>>manage system resources itself, as it's usually better at it than the
>>>"fixed" value you give by having it in a ram disk.
>>
>>Linux 2.4 has tmpfs filesystem, which does not have ramdisk problems. For
>>example, User-mode Linux can place virtual memory files in tmpfs:
>
>We are using MailScanner 4.04-1 with f-prot.  When we migrated our
>incoming directory to a tmpfs filesystem earlier this week, all virus
>scanning stopped, though spam, embedded HTML, and filename scanning
>continued unabated.
>
>We have found that f-prot does not descend directory hierarchies on
>tmpfs partitions.  We don't know if it sees the zero size of the
>directory and passes or what.  It is a bit frustrating.
>
>We are getting ready to call f-prot, but wanted to see if anybody else
>has seen this behavior.

Check that the path in your MailScanner.conf "Incoming Work Dir" is the
real path, and doesn't contain any links. If that still has a problem, then
it's not MailScanner.

>We are using RedHat8.0 with the 2.4.19-grsec kernel, but have also seen
>this on RH7.3 with a 2.4.18 kernel.

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support