Performance

[Alex Neuman]

So low-RAM situations should probably benefit from setting it to clamav
instead? Has anyone had such a situation?

-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
Of Kai Schaetzl
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:32 AM
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Performance


Pete wrote on         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:27:58 +1000:

> Also see the www.mailscanner.info website for info on installing 
> 'clamavmodule' which is supposed to be faster than 'clamav'
>

but also takes an extra 10 MB for each MailScanner process permanently.


Kai

-- 

Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org