> 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.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I've seen previous posts stating clamd was faster than File::Scan as well as more up to date. Clam to me is a heck of alot easier to update than File::Scan. I run both really, I scan through clamd first however, then hand off to File::Scan, again for the above reason, so that is why I wouldnt mind some clarity. KK _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
