Continuing saga of ClamAV module
ssilva at sgvwater.com
Thu Apr 12 17:09:53 IST 2007
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?
> 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
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!!!!
More information about the MailScanner