mailscanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Sun Jan 19 16:28:01 GMT 2003
Sounds like the kav daemon is better than the other daemons I have tried.
I will certainly consider adding it, many thanks for the patch.
At 15:18 19/01/2003, you wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:34:16 +0000 Julian Field
><mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
> > >I am using Kaspersky with it's DaemonClient but as I understand there is
> > >no support for DaemonClient. kavscanner and AvPDaemonClient produces
> > >different outputs so SweepVirusess.pm can't parse the output??
>Actually not so different as you'll see below.
> > >Due to high CPU load and long database loading time, I don't use
> > >AvpLinux. Is there any method to use kaspersky other then Daemon which
> > >take less CPU load and database loading time?
> > I have tried various of the other daemon-based scanners, and always found
> > them to actually be slower than the command-line ones in the only situation
> > where it matters.
>You talk about situations where mailscanner processes a lot of messages,
>but using daemon-based scanner is faster with low end server and a few
>messages. Besides, DansGuardian Anti-Virus plugin uses mailscanner
>scripts, and using daemon-based scanner in this case helps a lot - users
>get their web pages much faster. That's because I adapted mailscanner
>to work with kavdaemon clients. Please include it, even if as unsupported.
> > Once you have a high load, MailScanner will be handling large batches of
> > messages at 1 go.
> > If you use a daemon you have to send the location of every file to be
> > scanned along a network socket to the daemon so it knows what to scan. If
>It's not true with kavdaemon clients - they can scan directories, even
> > you use the command-line scanner, you have to just give it the starting
> > directory and tell it to scan recursively. Agreed, you have to wait the
> > startup time of the command-line scanner each time, but this is always
> > outweighed by the overhead of having to send the full pathname of several
> > hundred files along a network socket to the daemon.
> > So while it may appear to be more efficient when scanning a few files at
> > once, the only time it actually matters is when you are running out of
> > server capacity and the message batches have grown very large. At this
> > point, the command-line scanner is faster than the daemon.
> > Which is why I don't support the daemons. You also have the reliability
> > aspect that
> > a) the daemon may crash, leaving you with a hung system,
> > or
> > b) the daemon may well leak resources, slowly degrading your system
> over time.
>You can restart daemon periodically.
>Anyway, I understand your reasons, but please consider applying my patch -
>it will be user's risk to enable it, and I won't have to
>patch DansGuardian Anti-Virus
>plugin every time a new version comes out...
>ProcessKavDaemonClientOutput is almost the same as ProcessKasperskyOutput,
>the only differences are that it does not use $kaspersky_CurrentObject and
>if ($line =~ / infected: /)
>if ($line =~ /infected: /)
>I tested with latest kaspersky (18.104.22.168) and 2 clients - AvpDaemonClient from
>/opt/AVP/DaemonClients/Sample and AvpTeamDream from
>Could the OP (Murat Koc) test it? You will probably have to update to the
>Kaspersky, but it works with old licenses without problems.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
More information about the MailScanner