<p>Actually... The speed advantage for actual scans was relatively minor, but the decrease in memory footprint (and restart time) was huge. Loading the once for the clamd server simply was far superior to Mail::ClamAV (load once/child at every restart) and clamav/clamscan (load once/batch)... And lacked the semiproblematic upgrades of Mail::ClamAV.<br>
Hence clamd is effectively the only recomended ClamAV implementation for MailScanner these days.</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Den 26 nov 2011 20:29 skrev "Peter Bonivart" <<a href="mailto:bonivart@opencsw.org">bonivart@opencsw.org</a>>:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Remco Barendse <<a href="mailto:mailscanner@barendse.to">mailscanner@barendse.to</a>> wrote:<br>
> OK, great. So basically mail-clamav is not a requirement at all anymore?<br>
<br>
I don't think anyone has used it for years since clamd is faster and<br>
simpler. Once that got supported in MS everyone switched.<br>
--<br>
MailScanner mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info">mailscanner@lists.mailscanner.info</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner" target="_blank">http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner</a><br>
<br>
Before posting, read <a href="http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting" target="_blank">http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting</a><br>
<br>
Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!<br>
</blockquote></div>