On Wed, November 29, 2006 5:01 pm, Tom Samplonius said:
I don't know if that is accurate. clamd seems completely CPU bound. I
also don't know why additional threads would use a lot of extra memory,
as clamd seems to just stream data from the files it is caching.
And I don't see it in
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:15:39AM -0500, Daniel T. Staal wrote:
I don't know if that is accurate. clamd seems completely CPU bound. I
also don't know why additional threads would use a lot of extra memory,
as clamd seems to just stream data from the files it is caching.
And I don't
Daniel T. Staal wrote:
On Wed, November 29, 2006 5:01 pm, Tom Samplonius said:
I don't know if that is accurate. clamd seems completely CPU bound. I
also don't know why additional threads would use a lot of extra memory,
as clamd seems to just stream data from the files it is caching.
And I
Hi there,
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 Dennis Peterson wrote:
I do. I use a milter (J-Chkmail) that provides several layers of
anti-spam management
Do you use this for commercial purposes?
73,
Ged.
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit
G.W. Haywood wrote:
Hi there,
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 Dennis Peterson wrote:
I do. I use a milter (J-Chkmail) that provides several layers of
anti-spam management
Do you use this for commercial purposes?
73,
Ged.
No - I am employed to support the messaging gateway systems. I don't
sell any
jef moskot wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, JamesDR wrote:
...if your users are being let down by the 'time it takes to get a
phish sig' then isn't about time their network/mail admin looked into
added levels of detection?
I think the original point was that if Clam is going to scan for
