Adam65535 wrote: > On 10/9/07, Pelletier, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 2.6 seconds > for the same email. This trend is throughout the logs.
Those figures certainly don't match my results. I ran clamd and uvscan for quite some time (at least two years) until our volume became too great, and then had to do away with uvscan because it was way too slow. For the most part, clamd timings were always sub-second, while uvscan was always in the multiple second range, even as high as 17 seconds on some scans. I would suggest that you are using clamscan rather than clamd did if you are seeing the results you are reporting above. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
