Quoting Ole Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 01/28/04 at 08:32, 'twas brillig and Scott Harris scrobe: > > Subject: RE: [Mimedefang] Problem running clamd but not clamscan > > > > > > > Scott, et al - > > > I had similar issues with clamd versus clamscan (see > > > lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2003-December/01 > > > 8671.html) > > > but nobody else seemed to (or at least, nobody responded) and > > > I gave up due to lack of time. (Figuring, "I've got a > > > solution that works for my current mail load, why fsck with it...") > > > > > > Ole > > > -- > > > > I'm tempted to take the same route, except for the fact that > > I noticed the filter time has gone up dramatically: > > Scott - > The problem I had seemed to be that MD wasn't actually talking > to clamd. (Do you catch the EICAR text file with clamd enabled?) It > would make sense that MD processed significantly faster if it's not > incurring the virusscan overhead at all. Maybe we could have someone > with a working MD<->clamd setup try your speed test and report the > difference in MD time between clamav and clamd... >
First, I started using clamd, but clamd was dying for some reason on damaged zip archives, so I switched to clamscan till that issue will be resolved. Myself I prefer to use clamd, but I don't wand it to die when damaged zip archive arrives. I've already sent a sample of such archive to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I'll wain and see what will happen next. Best regards, Dmitry _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
