v220.127.116.11 Beta for Linux RPM Available
kevin.miller at juneau.org
Wed Feb 18 18:06:57 GMT 2015
So I'm confused. Pretty much my normal state <g>.
Is the clamavmodule loaded at MS startup, or merely installed on the drive? If the latter, then there's no performance hit unless you're down to your last few hundred bytes of free space, in which case you probably have imminent bigger issues.
In my MailScanner.conf is the line:
Virus Scanners = f-secure clamd
I get hits with both scanners, so apparently clamd is working as advertised. I don't understand the reference to "network code" and "moving toward spamd support". Isn't spamd support there already?
If all the installer is doing is dropping a perl module in place then it's just offering an option to those that perhaps can't run clamd for some reason, right? Or am I missing something...
Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500
Registered Linux User No: 307357
> This applies to SpamAssassin as well. I sent Jules code to move
> MailScanner to use the Spamd process years ago. Now the clamav module
> had a lot of issues because when internal defs within the clam code
> changed the module would puke until someone patched the module but it
> makes no sense to me why anything MailScanner shares should be based on
> a perl module if there is a daemon available to communicate with. Spamd
> protocol is pretty simple and fairly easy to integrate within
> MailScanner. The difference in speed is pretty much nil but the
> difference in MailScanner memory usage per child is significant. When I
> originally worked with JF to integrate the clamd code his biggest
> hesitation was he wasn't comfortable with network code... I would bet
> that was the biggest reason for handling postfix the way it's handled as
> well. Whoever is currently developing MS should really look at moving
> toward spamd support in place of the perl module
More information about the MailScanner