Mail-ClamAv / ClamAv
Jeff A. Earickson
jaearick at colby.edu
Thu Dec 20 13:06:06 GMT 2007
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Richard Potter wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:10:12 -0500 (EST)
> From: Richard Potter <rpotter at rpcs.net>
> Reply-To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> To: MailScanner discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
> Subject: Re: Mail-ClamAv / ClamAv
> On Wed, December 19, 2007 8:02 am, shuttlebox wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2007 1:51 PM, ajos1 at onion.demon.co.uk
>> <ajos1 at onion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Julian Field wrote:
>>>>> Due to problems with it building the clamavmodule virus scanner, I
>>> have backed off to the previous version again. Sorry about that.
>>> For those interested... I spent hours (and hours) last week trying to
>>> get Mail-ClamAv to install... and in the end I managed to work out it
>>> failed for the following reason...
>> This has happened every other release of Clam...that Mail::Clamav gets
>> out of sync. But now there's no reason to use it anymore when MS has
>> support for clamd. Same speed and less memory used.
> I have also come to this conclusion. Anyone have thoughts on this, right
> or wrong?
I've got to agree here... Clamavmodule was always a PITA with the perl
module being out of sync. The only reason I used it was speed. Clamd
has worked great since Julian introduced it to MailScanner. My two
cents: offer clamd or the original clamav version for people who can't
get clamd to go, and yank the clamavmodule stuff outta there...
More information about the MailScanner