Adam65535 wrote: > On 10/10/07, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 2.6seconds >>> 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-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/
