John Rudd wrote: > Output from using Mail::ClamAV : > delta = 667
> Output from using clamd: > delta = 65 Is your Mail::ClamAV code reloading the signature database for each message? That's probably what's killing the performance. If you somehow rework your code to load the signatures once when the filter starts up, you might see better performance. However, I still doubt that you'll beat clamd. It's written in multithreaded C, and the IPC overhead between the Perl filter and clamd is minimal. > I expect most of the challenge will come from posting the same results > on the mailscanner mailing list (who all believe that Mail::ClamAV is > the fastest way to go). >From what I understand of Mailscanner, it calls the virus scanner once for a large batch of queue files. If the cost of loading the signatures is high relative to the cost of scanning a file, then Mailscanner's approach might make sense. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
