v4.85.1.0 Beta for Linux RPM Available

[Rick Cooper]

Kevin Miller wrote:
> 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 MS is not configured to use the module it doesn't load anything. The
network code statement really should have read sockets in general, TCP or
unix as both clamd and spamd will talk on either. With clamd MailScanner
communicates with the daemon via sockets (TCP/unix) and there is nothing
loaded such as signatures. MailScanner does NOT use spamd it uses a perl
module much like clamav module so for each child everything is loaded, IIRC
it's on the order of about 30+MB per child. MailScanner has no use for a
running instance of spamd, if it did it would reduce the MailScanner foot
print nearly as much as supporting clamd did way back when I first wrote the
code and JF finally agreed to include it in the code base. 

> 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...  
> 
> ...Kevin
> --
> Kevin Miller
> 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