I am contemplating this, switching to clamd instead of clamscan. when I ran clamdscan it pukes, so I will stay with what works, (for me) I also heard reports that clamd pukes on bad archives. My scan time is low enough with clamscan that I don't really see the point. ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 20583 Scanned directories: 1 Scanned files: 3 Infected files: 1 Data scanned: 0.11 Mb I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes Time: 0.995 sec (0 m 0 s)
Bryan Stansell said: > the overhead of reading the virus defs each time clamscan runs is rather > large (at least on my 'lil box). here's a simple test i ran to show > time differences between clamscan and clamd (5.039s vs 0.045s). > -- Luke Computer Science System Administrator _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
