ClamAV Mailscanner not using clamd

[Rick Cooper]

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info 
 > [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On 
 > Behalf Of Ghetti, Ron
 > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:22 PM
 > To: MailScanner discussion
 > Subject: RE: ClamAV Mailscanner not using clamd
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
 > [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Rick
 > Cooper
 > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:54 AM
[...]
 > This is not accurate in context. The clamd portion of MailScanner
 > doesn't
 > depend on the libclamav versioning as does the perl module. The only
 > time
 > the clamd portion of MS would need updated would be if the 
 > clamav team
 > altered the basic protocol and it has been years since they have done
 > that.
 > There might be some tweaks to the parser that have taken place since
 > 4.68.8
 > but changes to clamav it's self have no direct relationship 
 > to MS clamd
 > scanner. In fact you can completely update a clamav package and never
 > even
 > restart MailScanner.
 > 
 > BTW: I think this also makes a good argument for supporting spamd, at
 > least
 > optionally. It uses less resources, is just as fast as the 
 > perl module,
 > allows for updating without restarting MS. The only drawback 
 > I see would
 > be
 > the MCP functions. One would have to run to spamd instances 
 > on different
 > sockets because you cannot pass spamd a config file once 
 > it's running...
 > But
 > I would bet you would still see quite a reduction in 
 > resource usage even
 > with two daemons.
 > 
 > Rick
 > 
 > 
 > That's good information Rick, thank you.
 > Essentially everything was chugging along fine albeit a bit slow.
 > That was the reason for disabling virus scanning to try and keep
 > everything moving.
 > Then later the idea was to try running clamd to see if the 
 > performance
 > was any better.
 > 
 > I think I'm going to continue to tackle the upgrades
 > But I've got to work through them.
 > What I have at the moment is the cpan modules won't compile
 > Because the included clamav module is outdated.
 > 
 > An ancient version stuck in the package manager 
 > And a now older version of MailScanner that needs to be upgraded.
 > 
 > 
[...]

If you disable the clamavmodule (in MailScanner) and just use clamd the
clamav perl module is not required. The clamd code is 100% internal and
speaks directly to the clamd daemon it's self, thus it's not affected by
changes in the libclamav.so as is the perl based ClamAVModule code. Of
course I think you should stay up to date with MS but I personally am at
version 4.67.6 myself because I haven't had the time to update the patches I
have to apply to MailScanner with each update (for special functionality I
require). All I am really saying I guess is the version you are running will
work fine with a properly installed ClamAV package and MS configuration.

Rick


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.