Continuing saga of ClamAV module

[Scott Silva]

Edward Prendergast spake the following on 4/12/2007 4:01 AM:
> With the recurring clamavmodule problems of late, has anybody started just
> using clamav direct rather than the module? 
> Is there a huge speed increase to be gained in using the module, or a big
> saving on resources?
> 
> Edward
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
> It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
> is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any action taken or
> omitted to be taken in reliance on it, any form of reproduction,
> dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or
> publication of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify
> us immediately. Please also destroy and delete the message from your
> computer.
> 
I can't answer your request because your disclaimer says I am unauthorized!

I am notifying you that I must have received this e-mail in error.

When will the corporate PHB's realize that these disclaimers are a joke?




Now to answer your question just in case you are forced to have this disclaimer;

The module does save some resources because the system doesn't have to fork a
clamd run. If you get a fair amount of mail on your system, you will notice
the difference. But if you are using other command-line scanners, which you
should be using more than one, I think your return will be less. Every
processor cycle you can save is available to be used elsewhere.

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!