Mail-ClamAv / ClamAv
steve at fsl.com
Thu Dec 20 13:55:15 GMT 2007
Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
> 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.
> 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...
> Jeff Earickson
> Colby College
The only drawback might be what happens when clamd dies and I've seen
this happen. Do you run a keepalive wrapper on clamd?
More information about the MailScanner