Michael Katz put forth on 11/30/2009 2:45 PM: > There are many filtering Postfix AV solutions that are far more > efficient than Amavisd and many AV scanners that are considerably more > scalable than clamav such. A few years ago we did some detailed testing > between ClamAV and commercial av scanners and the difference was huge in > terms of load reduction and throughput. In our tests we have found that > the biggest performance limitation in Postfix for AV/AS scanning, > assuming you have removed bottlenecks that amavisd and clamav introduce, > is from having to copy messages out of the queue to scan. Some > commercial email platforms allow for scanning in memory rather than > requiring copying files and these platforms , in our test, far outscale > Postfix for filtering over a 100 messages/second.
I'm pretty sure I recall Wietse saying that third party software accessing queue files is forbidden, as he provides no supported API for dong so. IIRC, products that do this void the Postfix support warranty, such as Mailscanner. > Mike Katz > http://mailspect.com The cost of a modern plenty powerful (CPU/memory) 1U server with a couple of fast sata disks is around $1000-2000, paid _once_ with no recurring licensing fees as all the software is FOSS, with minimal power usage, maybe $100/year. What's the license + maintenance cost of any of these commercial A/V solutions for *nix/Postfix? I'm just betting the commercial A/V outlay is probably more than a 2nd box, especially over 3-5 years. No? -- Stan
