On 11/29/2011 01:28 AM, Stevan Bajić wrote: > *require* is a strong word. Enabling clamav support in DSPAM does not > require ClamAV at all. All it does is enable code that is capable to > send to a TCP/IP socket some data and act on the result. That is all > what the clamav code is doing in DSPAM. You don't even need to have > ClamAV installed when you compile DSPAM.
So here's the thing. With respect to fedora depending on your answers, 'require' might be the exactly correct words. If enabling dspam *links* with clamav rpm will pick up on the runtime dependency (even if you could disable it via a config) and when I install dspam, clamav will be installed. If enabling it only allows it to do some talking to a socket without linking with clamav's library. Then I could turn it on and it wouldn't 'require' it. When I speak of require I mean in a distro packaging policy / tools way. Not in a you must have it installed regardless of whether its used for dspam to function kind of way. I never tested this when I first built it as I figured it linked with clamav and as such would require it to be pulled in. Personally I also liked the simplicity of having separate tools for each stage. Using clamsmtp early on, and dspam later in the process worked for me. However I'm more than willing to revisit it if dspam can be compiled with the support that wouldn't end up making it require clamav be installed regardless of it being used. -- Nathanael d. Noblet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d _______________________________________________ Dspam-user mailing list Dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-user
