Paul Kosinski in message 'Re: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow' wrote:
Also, I have noticed that Norton/Symantec, McAfee, CA etc. seem to
include new executable code in their signature updates. Likely they
add special-case code for some new threats, rather than only data.
But I would
When I originally started using clamav, clamscan could handle my low
(SOHO) volume of email quite well, but recently, it started taking
over 20 secs to scan a short email, and was even showing signs of not
keeping up with the spam rate. (My email server is an AMD Sempron
2800+, 1600 MHz, 896 MB
Paul Kosinski wrote:
My only worry now is that either clamd will crash, or stop listening
too long when updating. I am using procmail on the tail-end of
Postfix's virtual delivery and don't see a way to have procmail get
Postfix to try delivery again later (like it would with SMTP
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
I feel there are good reasons to run clamscan instead of another option,
and I feel that one can indeed do so if they have sufficient
resources...
For perspective, in my environment we'd be talking about a database load
time of less than a couple
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Rudd
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:10 AM
To: ClamAV users ML
Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow
[...]
That, or mail servers that scan their email in bulk batches
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
John Rudd wrote:
[snip]
That, or mail servers that scan their email in bulk batches (like those
using mailscanner), where the latency of starting clamscan is MUCH
smaller than the latency in going through clamd (I've timed both under
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
clamdscan solved that issue, although I would have appreciated this
effect *before* I upgraded to a newer release.
This keeps comming up, perhaps it needs to be addressed in the docs.
Could you tell us why you used clamscan instead of clamd/clamdscan
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
clamdscan solved that issue, although I would have appreciated this
effect *before* I upgraded to a newer release.
This keeps comming up, perhaps it needs to be addressed in the docs.
Could you tell us why you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Rostetter wrote:
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
attention from the developers:
They are well aware of it.
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
1.2 MB and it takes about
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
had worked until sometime ago). So I configured mimedefang for clamscan.
Maybe it's time to ask the mimedefang
Peter Boosten wrote:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
1) Yes, it is slow.
2) Yes, it wasn't always like this (and hence you could down-grade to an
older
version if you needed).
3) Newer versions are faster (see below).
4) Yes, it still can be used for a mail server (I know, as I'm still
Quoting Christopher X. Candreva [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
had worked until sometime ago). So I configured mimedefang
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
on everyone else.
Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamscan on
production ?
Every time this comes up the answer is don't do it. If that is the answer,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail. Neither is
entirely ideal, but we should take the wide
jef moskot wrote the following on 6/18/2007 12:19 PM -0800:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
that the other option is a daemon that can
On Jun 18, 2007, at 12:19 PM, jef moskot wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail.
Quoting Christopher X. Candreva [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
on everyone else.
Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamscan on
production ?
Not exactly. But I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] jef moskot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
that the other option is a daemon that can potentially
On Monday 18 June 2007 2:35 pm, Dave Warren wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] jef moskot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
/home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Anyone with
any ideas?
Because you didn't RTFM. :-)
clamdscan passes the file name to clamd, which
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
had worked until sometime ago). So
On Monday 18 June 2007 5:04 pm, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
/home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Anyone
with any ideas?
Because you
jef moskot wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail. Neither is
entirely ideal, but we
Chris wrote:
On Monday 18 June 2007 5:04 pm, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
/home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Anyone
with any
Quoting Jan-Pieter Cornet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
clamscan has a purpose. As others have also said - YMMV. A very lightly
loaded mailserver (~100 msgs/day) shouldn't have a lot of problems with
clamscan. At least not with the 0.88.x version.
We've been using it, and deliver hundreds of thousands
Quoting Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not exactly. But I did say that I am using it in production. Now, if it
is a good way or not, that is a subjective matter.
Not exactly - it is measurable. And it is really bad.
No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on your available resources.
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not exactly. But I did say that I am using it in production. Now, if it
is a good way or not, that is a subjective matter.
Not exactly - it is measurable. And it is really bad.
No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on
Quoting Dennis Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on your available resources. And in
my opinion, with my resources, it is tolerable. Your milage may vary.
Sorry, no. For any particular machine you can measure the performance of
each clamav client and you
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
had worked
Henrik Krohns wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:45:30PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
if you have sufficient system resources, and are willing to
tolerate slow delivery times (up to 4 minutes on my system, with clamscan
on 0.90.3 for example).
I'm just amazed by all the nitpicking in this
On Saturday 16 June 2007 19:07, Dennis Peterson wrote:
Thomas Spuhler wrote:
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
attention from the developers:
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
1.2 MB and it takes about 1 minute. Same
On 6/17/07, Thomas Spuhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more attention
from the developers:
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about 1.2 MB
and it takes about 1 minute.
Use clamdscan instead of clamscan.
On Sunday 17 June 2007 08:43, Török Edvin wrote:
On 6/17/07, Thomas Spuhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
attention from the developers:
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
1.2 MB and it takes
--As of June 17, 2007 11:44:04 AM -0700, Thomas Spuhler is alleged to have
said:
Use clamdscan instead of clamscan.
That doesn't improve clamscan.
(I can use a free commercial that is really fast)
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Your problem is the startup time of clamscan, and has been
On Sunday 17 June 2007 11:52, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of June 17, 2007 11:44:04 AM -0700, Thomas Spuhler is alleged to have
said:
Use clamdscan instead of clamscan.
That doesn't improve clamscan.
(I can use a free commercial that is really fast)
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Your
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Thomas Spuhler
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 8:37 PM
To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
Subject: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow
I posted on another list as well, but thought
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
attention from the developers:
They are well aware of it.
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
1.2 MB and it takes about 1 minute. Same file with a commercial scanner
takes 2 sec. This
Eric Rostetter wrote:
1) Yes, it is slow.
2) Yes, it wasn't always like this (and hence you could down-grade to an older
version if you needed).
3) Newer versions are faster (see below).
4) Yes, it still can be used for a mail server (I know, as I'm still
using it).
The latter
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more attention
from the developers:
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about 1.2 MB
and it takes about 1 minute. Same file with a commercial scanner takes 2 sec.
This wasn't always like this. As a result,
Thomas Spuhler wrote:
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more attention
from the developers:
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about 1.2
MB
and it takes about 1 minute. Same file with a commercial scanner takes 2 sec.
This wasn't
40 matches
Mail list logo
