v4.85.1.0 Beta for Linux RPM Available

[Kevin Miller]

Ugh. Brain fart.  Clamd != spamd.  Got it.

Sigh...

...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 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Rick Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:00 AM
> To: 'MailScanner discussion'
> Subject: RE: v4.85.1.0 Beta for Linux RPM Available
> 
> 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
> 
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!