>About the time Nimda hit, we put Mcafee VirusScan 4.? on our Imail Win2k >server and performance slowed to a pitiful level of performance. I do not >have any numbers or stats, but as soon as we removed Mcafee, performance >returned to normal. We also tried NAV with the same results. I think >it's because these products are checking huge .MBX files every time they >are accessed.
I doubt these products 1) understand the Imail .mbx directory nor 2) don't mark how much of it they've already scanned, so yes, if you scan .mbx files as banal on-disk files (and worse, run IMAP which encourages fatter mbx files), rather than scanning in-line SMTP per-message as messages, you're asking for real trouble. > <IMHO> If your Imail server is a dedicated server to just the > application, the SMTP scanner SMTP scanner? I thought you were talking above about disk scanner? SMTP scanners deal with mbx files or individual msgs files before placed in the mbx? >, whatever product you use, should be sufficient. nope, satisfaction totally depends on the fitting the usual suspects of MHz + memory + disk i/o to the crime. >As mentioned earlier in this listing, because you are not running IIS and >no other activity is going on, you should be all set.</IMHO> it depends.... :))) I've talked to Imail users running Imail 4 and 5 and 6 very happily on P200 type of machines. Yes, the machine is busy, but it works, but but it has little left over for AV and heavy Web mail. Len http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.4 for NT4 & W2K http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
