Skip scan for viruses

[David H.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Randal, Phil wrote:

> It really should be the other way round.
>
<snip>

I have to agree in this case, for a very simple reason. I had to battle
with a system which obviously had a CPU too little for the amount of
Spam/Virus scanning it had to do. So I turned off the Spam Checks until
the new hardware arrived and that made a substantial change.

So it seems to me that SpamAssassin and its spam checks is more of a CPU
hog than the whole virus scanning process.

My thought would be

if a Virus is dropped before the Spam Scanning can even pick it up, that
would mean less work to the CPU, thus less ressources are consumed or am
I making a mistake?

- -d


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFAGjd6PMoaMn4kKR4RA1JRAJ4wzmf+962BCPSrMO7FeUDGBrQu0gCdFe78
CHQIMOrhfvLjlqBD9Y78lGY=
=5TWi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----