Continuing saga of ClamAV module

[Mike Tremaine]

> 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
> 
> 

Yes my solution to the last problem was to swtich to clamav only because 
it was the fix that  worked before I really understood the problem. But 
clamav is using commandling line clamscan which is much slower then 
clamavmodule. The problem is everytime you call [fork] a new clamscan it 
has to load the virus database which is over 100,000 records.

One possible solution that it might time to revisit is making a new 
wrapper for clamdscan and starting the clamd daemon. I know this has 
been mentioned before but I forgot what the issue was with it. I know 
that Mail::ClamAV aka clamavmodule was a nicely intergrated solution for 
MailScanner but as you mentioned we keeping seeing it as the weakest 
link. If clamdscan + clamd allow more stability during upgrades [both of 
the sig database and the engine] then maybe it is time to switch.

[I know it would be pretty easy to copy the clamav.wrapper and change to 
use clamdscan, I might test this out soon.]

-Mike