[EMAIL PROTECTED] wanted us to know: >Dennis Peterson wrote: >> It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to scanning >> for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has >> failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to >> know. >The reverse is also true. There is no point in spam scanning a file if >it has been identified as a virus. Of the two processes (spam scanning >and virus scanning), spam scanning is more resource-intensive (at least >the way I do it) - so I virus scan first, and spam-scan second.
I second that. When I changed my system to av scan before spam, my load dropped by about 40%. -- Regards... Todd There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. --Ed Howdershelt Linux kernel 2.6.8.1-12mdkenterprise 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
