ClamAV 0.93 released
rcooper at dwford.com
Wed Apr 30 02:19:55 IST 2008
If you really want to see mailscanner lose weight without losing speed you
should see it when it's using spamd instead of the perl mod.IIRC it drops to
15mg or so per child, make that 21mg (just checked ) and is just as fast,
and spamd shares the sigs with it's children, again IIRC.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On
> Behalf Of Steve Freegard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:55 AM
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: ClamAV 0.93 released
> Denis Beauchemin wrote:
> > Koopmann, Jan-Peter a écrit :
> >>> Since there are known exploits for 0.92 I am beginning
> to feel the
> >> urge
> >>> to upgrade to 0.93...
> >> Why not switch to clamd?
> > Clamd means a new daemon to start/monitor which translates
> to a new
> > potential point of failure. Mail::ClamAV didn't have
> those shortcomings
> > but the lack of timely updates will probably push me
> towards clamd...
> Having tested both - I came to the following conclusion:
> If you have plenty memory to spare and MailScanner child
> start-up time
> is not an issue, then use Mail::ClamAV otherwise in all
> other cases use
> clamd as it uses considerably less RAM without any
> performance penalty
> as it uses threads as it seems that the signature database is shared
> amongst the scanner threads.
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the MailScanner