On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:07:52PM -0400, Adam65535 wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Rob MacGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've never yet seen clamd take anything close to that on emails. I
> > have to add SpamAssassin to the process to get anything close to that
> > kind of delay.
> >
> > As a quick test, I ran clamdscan against sample-nonspam.txt (that came
> > with SpamAssassin some time back) and it took 0.015s.
> >
> > Now, clamscan, that took 2.6s for the same scan (f-prot took 0.3s,
> > bitdefender a mind blowing 6.3).
> >
>
> Well the timings I did locally on that simple email confirm what everyone
> else has been stating. Uvscan is slower than clamd. Either I have been
> transposing these two timing all this time or one of the clamav/clamd
> updates improved things. Going by everyone comments it sure seems like I
> have been transposing these numbers :/.
It might be something of both; there was also one of the clamav updates
in the past year which speeded daemon mode up tremendously, IME.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
President - I and I Computing * http://www.iandicomputing.com/
Custom programming, network design, systems and network consulting services
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
AMaViS-user mailing list
AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user
AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3
AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
