Dennis Peterson wanted us to know: >> Of the two processes (spam scanning and virus scanning), spam scanning is >> more resource-intensive (at least the way I do it) - so I virus scan >> first, and spam-scan second. >Interesting - that is exactly the opposite of my experiences so I'm >interested in knowing more about your content scanning tool. I don't use >Perl for this (or anything else) so I'm wondering if that may be a factor.
Possibly. Using spamassassin in daemon mode with spamass-milter. >But yes, no point in double-damning a message when once will do, and I >guess that was my point, and clearly the most efficient method should be >first. When a milter is configured to reject at the SMTP level, it never gets to the second milter in the chain. So if clamav-milter detects a virus, the CPU intensive content scanning process never sees the message (hence much lower load). The amount of time that clamav spends chomping on an email is typically less than 1 second. The amount of time that spamassassin spends chomping on an email is typically about 2 seconds. So ~33% time (or less) for clamav and ~66% time (or more) for spamassassin. This information gleaned from averages in my maillogs. -- Regards... Todd They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin Linux kernel 2.6.8.1-12mdkenterprise 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.09, 0.02 _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
