[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 4 May 2007 at 12:29, Kevin wrote: > >> Sadly the scanning engine in ClamAV is not very optimized, > > Really? Might that depend on which build type you were using and which > compile-time > options had been selected? > > I have found it as good as MTA-integrated scanning, but I have found no > published > comparisons available.
Pardon the delay on this reply. Those are possible causes however I was referring to the fact that the scanning engine was changed a few months ago to enable scanning for more/different types of viruses, the developers themselves admitted that this introduces a nasty performance hit and they were working on it. I however have not kept up on the ClamAV development so I can not say for certain if this has been fixed. I also base it on the fact that clamd uses around 100% cpu when scanning a file, however on my exchange server ScanMail uses very little, and I guarantee that ScanMail scans more messages since you can't tell it not to scan. >> if you have a >> large volume of email I would recommend keeping an exchange integrated >> virus scanner, personally I use Trend Micro at the moment but if I were >> to building a new server/switch I would definitely go with nod32. > > OOI, what would be the reasons for going with NOD? Performance, it's not Symantec/Mcafee, I don't like the latest version of the Trend product, I am throughly impressed with the Nod32 desktop scanning product, and the vast amount of recommendations I see for it on other lists. Kevin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
