mark at msapiro.net
Mon Aug 26 01:20:28 UTC 2019
On 8/25/19 6:07 PM, Rick Gutierrez wrote:
> Mark this I will schedule to do my tests, I only have a doubt with
> this, when activating by tcp I think it could be slower and you can
> feel the impact on large volumes of mail traffic, if I am wrong I hope
> I am corrected.
I don't think there will be any significant difference between
communicating with clamd via a TCP vs. a unix socket. The bulk of the
time should be in the clamd process itself, not in communication.
Normally, there is less overhead in communicating via a unix socket, but
I don't think this is going to be significant,
Anyway, I was suggesting you configure clamd and MailScanner to use a
unix socket and not TCP. It seemed your issue might have been that
MailScanner was trying to use the unix socket but clamd was listening on
a TCP port.
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
More information about the MailScanner