icheckd vs. SAVI-Perl

Antony Stone Antony at SOFT-SOLUTIONS.CO.UK
Wed Nov 26 20:41:35 GMT 2003

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 4:17 pm, Robin M. wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Julian Field wrote:
> > At 15:26 26/11/2003, you wrote:
> > >I am testing sophos and initially I set it up to run as a daemon with
> > > the icheckd interface, but after reading the mailscanner docs it
> > > appears to suggest that not installing icheckd and compiling the
> > > Savi-Perl module instead. Are there any benefits to running sophos with
> > > SAVI-Perl rather than running icheckd.
> >
> > With SAVI-Perl there is no daemon to crash on you.
> I see. If there are no other benefits  maybe I will use daemontools to
> make sure it is always available. Does this interface have a history of
> turning into a Zombie.

Do have some reason for preferring icheckd?

Do you have any reason to believe that calling icheckd will be more efficient
than using Savi-Perl?

I'm just interested to know why you're trying to go against the system - in my
experience Julian usually chooses the best path.


Documentation is like sex.
When it's good, it's very very good.
When it's bad, it's still better than nothing.

                                                     Please reply to the list;
                                                           please don't CC me.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list