On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Troy Morrison wrote: > I'm not claiming that this is better or worse; just pointing out that > there's more than one way to do it. Right. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the method I described was better than any of the others mentioned. To the contrary, I am interested in hearing if there are any fundamental problems with this method. Some of our users here complained that mail was being slowed down tremendously (after they were told about the scanner) but in just about every case, the problem turned out be elsewhere. Regards, Christopher ----- Christopher Seawood That Linux Guy, Aureate Media Corporation
- Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2) Christopher Seawood
- Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2) Troy Morrison
- Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Take 2) Christopher Seawood
- Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis (Tak... Eric Dahnke
- Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis ... Troy Morrison
- Re: Virus scanning with qmail+am... Eric Dahnke
- Re: Virus scanning with qmail+amavis ... Bruno Wolff III
- Re: Virus scanning with qmail+am... Adam D . McKenna
- Trying to achieve maximum sp... jeremy
- Re: Trying to achieve ma... Dirk Harms-Merbitz
- Re: Trying to achieve ma... jeremy
- Re: Trying to achieve ma... Mark Delany
- Re: Trying to achieve ma... Mark Delany
