Peter Boosten wrote: > > Eric Rostetter wrote: >> 1) Yes, it is slow. >> 2) Yes, it wasn't always like this (and hence you could down-grade to an >> older >> version if you needed). >> 3) Newer versions are faster (see below). >> 4) Yes, it still can be used for a mail server (I know, as I'm still >> using it). > > The latter point isn't entirely true: we had connections from other MTAs > timing out on our mail servers, because of clamscan. > > clamdscan solved that issue, although I would have appreciated this > effect *before* I upgraded to a newer release. > > Kind regards, > > Peter
Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email. It has always been a terrible tool. I don't think it has ever been recommended for that role, either. That is why the clamd daemon and the clamav libraries exist, why the clam milter exists, and why clamdscan exists. Clamscan is fine for scanning file systems where long lists of files are scanned with very few processes because of the db loading penalty at each startup, but clamd, which provides the same thing, loads the database files once and can be re-used thousands of times an hour via sockets, streams, and file pointers either directly (direct calls to the socket from your code) or from clamdscan which can be called from scripts. dp _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
