clamavmodule or clamd ?

Rick Cooper rcooper at
Tue Mar 31 14:40:21 IST 2009


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at 
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at] On Behalf 
> Of Eddie Hallahan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:15 AM
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: clamavmodule or clamd ?
> Hi all,
> We currently run a chunk of servers and am having real grief with the
> perl clamav module.  Our servers currently use clamavmodule in their
> scanning.  What would be the issues if we switched to clamd - 
> i.e. would
> this slow things down/speed them up, not make a difference?

There is virtually no difference in speed
Clamd uses much less memory/resources
The basic clamd protocol that scans dirs/files hasn't changed in years (or
	they expanded the protocol for version 0.95 (which did not change
	they modified SESSION and STREAM a bit but that doesn't affect the
basic scans either
MailScanner talks directly to the daemon so there are no external calls
requiring a shell
No need to do anything with MailScanner to update the database, not need to
restart when
	Clamav or the signatures are updated
You should monitor the daemon (although it rarely fails) but you are already
	your MTA and MailScanner right?

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

More information about the MailScanner mailing list