Todd Lyons wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wanted us to know:
>> 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).
Your site policies and your data patterns also come into play. If you get
lotsa spam and hardly any viruses it may make sense to spam-scan first anyway.
We reject viruses but accept spam (tagged so users can have a "junk email"
folder) so - for us - data patterns don't enter into it.
For the record, we use MIMEDefang + SpamAssassin to spam-scan. Each MIMEDefang
thread has its own SpamAssassin object which is quite big. I've been toying
with the idea of writing a SpamAssassin::Client module to emulate spamc, but
haven't done anything serious with it. I know someone else got a working
prototype together.
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
