Adam65535 wrote:
> On 10/10/07, mouss <mlist.only free.fr> wrote:
>> Adam65535 wrote:
>>> On 10/9/07, Pelletier, Robert
<pelletierrcsdhr.qc.ca> wrote:
>>>> I'm using ClamAV. It's a perfect match with
Amavis, it's fast and get's
>>>> high in the reviews.
>>>>
>>> In my experiences clamav/clamd is much slower
than other mail scanners
>> (even
>>> when up against command line scanners like
uvscan). It is still a very
>>> useful virus scanner but not fast by any means.
For an example... the
>>> command line scanner uvscan takes .15 seconds
while clamav takes 2.6seconds
>>> for the same email. This trend is throughout
the logs.
>>
>> Faster at short distances aren't the fastest at
long ones ;-p clam has a
>> daemonized version, which helps avoid
fork/exec/initialize (load sig db,
>> ...) for every message.
>>
>
> Read my message again. The timings are with using
clamd.
sure, but it says clamav, which I understood as the command
line
version. can you clarify this please?
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and
a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
AMaViS-user mailing list
AMaViS-userlists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user
AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amav
is.org/amavis-faq.php3
AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/ho
wto/
|
