On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Matthew S. Cramer wrote: > Due to its speed I will continue to use it as my first scanner.
I don't understand the logic behind this. In our case, something like 1.1% of our total mail volume contains a virus. That means 98.9% of the time, you'd end up running all three virus scanners. And if File::Scan is perfect at catching viruses, it means that 1.1% of the time, you wouldn't have to run Clam or your third virus scanner. If File::Scan isn't perfect, then the performance benefit decreases even from this small amount. So I don't agree with the performance argument. In my opinion, the only valid reason to run File::Scan *and* Clam is if you think File::Scan will catch some viruses that Clam will miss. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
