Paul Kosinski in message 'Re: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow' wrote:
>
> Also, I have noticed that Norton/Symantec, McAfee, CA etc. seem to
> include new executable code in their signature updates. Likely they
> add special-case code for some new threats, rather t
Paul Kosinski wrote:
>
> My only worry now is that either clamd will crash, or stop listening
> too long when updating. I am using procmail on the tail-end of
> Postfix's "virtual" delivery and don't see a way to have procmail get
> Postfix to try delivery again later (like it would with SMTP
> de
When I originally started using clamav, clamscan could handle my low
(SOHO) volume of email quite well, but recently, it started taking
over 20 secs to scan a short email, and was even showing signs of not
keeping up with the spam rate. (My email server is an AMD Sempron
"2800+", 1600 MHz, 896 MB R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
John Rudd wrote:
[snip]
> That, or mail servers that scan their email in bulk batches (like those
> using mailscanner), where the latency of starting clamscan is MUCH
> smaller than the latency in going through clamd (I've timed both under
> mails
Quoting Henrik Krohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Good for you. As the email flow could be made much more efficient with a
> simple addition of letter "d", I'm a bit confused in this matter.
So now you know what software I run, and that it would support that change?
And you know it would make it not o
Quoting Henrik Krohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:45:30PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>>
>> if you have sufficient system resources, and are willing to
>> tolerate slow delivery times (up to 4 minutes on my system, with clamscan
>> on 0.90.3 for example).
>
> I'm just amaze
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Rudd
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:10 AM
> To: ClamAV users ML
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow
>
[...]
>
> That, or mail serve
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> I feel there are good reasons to run clamscan instead of another option,
> and I feel that one can indeed do so if they have sufficient
> resources...
For perspective, in my environment we'd be talking about a database load
time of less than a couple se
John Rudd wrote:
> (* "questionable"? "not idea"? sure.. unacceptable to the point of
> firing someone? that's incompetent management)
That should have said "not ideal", not "not idea".
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://
Henrik Krohns wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:45:30PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> if you have sufficient system resources, and are willing to
>> tolerate slow delivery times (up to 4 minutes on my system, with clamscan
>> on 0.90.3 for example).
>
> I'm just amazed by all the nitpicking i
Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>>
>>> I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
>>> ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
>>>
Quoting Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on your available resources. And in
>> my opinion, with my resources, it is tolerable. Your milage may vary.
>
> Sorry, no. For any particular machine you can measure the performance of
> each clamav client an
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> Not exactly. But I did say that I am using it in production. Now, if it
>>> is a good way or not, that is a subjective matter.
>> Not exactly - it is measurable. And it is really bad.
>
> No, it _IS_ subjective, and it d
Quoting Dennis Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Not exactly. But I did say that I am using it in production. Now, if it
>> is a good way or not, that is a subjective matter.
>
> Not exactly - it is measurable. And it is really bad.
No, it _IS_ subjective, and it depends on your available resour
Quoting Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> clamscan has a purpose. As others have also said - YMMV. A very lightly
> loaded mailserver (~100 msgs/day) shouldn't have a lot of problems with
> clamscan. At least not with the 0.88.x version.
We've been using it, and deliver hundreds of thousan
Chris wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 5:04 pm, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
>>> /home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
>>>
>>> I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Any
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, at 12:19 PM, jef moskot wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
>> that the other option is a daemon that ca
Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
>>> on everyone else.
>> Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamsca
jef moskot wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>
> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
> that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail. Neither is
> entirely ideal, but
On Monday 18 June 2007 5:04 pm, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
> > /home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
> >
> > I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Anyone
> > with any ideas?
>
> B
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>
> > I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
> > ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
> > had worked until sometime ag
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ clamdscan phish1.txt
> /home/chris/phish1.txt: Access denied. ERROR
>
> I can't figure out why I keep getting this Access denied error. Anyone with
> any ideas?
Because you didn't RTFM. :-)
clamdscan passes the file name to clamd, which
On Monday 18 June 2007 2:35 pm, Dave Warren wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jef moskot
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> >> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
> >
> >I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycle
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jef moskot
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>
>I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
>that the other option is a daemon that can pot
Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>
>> Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
>> on everyone else.
>
> Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamscan on
> production ?
Not exac
On Jun 18, 2007, at 12:19 PM, jef moskot wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>
> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
> that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail.
>
jef moskot wrote the following on 6/18/2007 12:19 PM -0800:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
>>
>
> I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
> that the other option is a daemon that c
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Clamscan is a terrible tool to use in real time with email.
I would recommend it for low volume servers with cycles to burn, given
that the other option is a daemon that can potentially fail. Neither is
entirely ideal, but we should take the wide vari
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Anyway, my point is, your millage may vary. Don't try to impose your views
> on everyone else.
Whoa here. Did you chime and and give a good way to use clamscan on
production ?
Every time this comes up the answer is "don't do it". If that is the answ
Quoting "Christopher X. Candreva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>
>> I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
>> ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
>> had worked until sometime ago). So I configured m
Peter Boosten wrote:
>
> Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> 1) Yes, it is slow.
>> 2) Yes, it wasn't always like this (and hence you could down-grade to an
>> older
>> version if you needed).
>> 3) Newer versions are faster (see below).
>> 4) Yes, it still can be used for a mail server (I know, as I'm
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
> I had some problems running clamd on one of the machines a long time
> ago, and with mimedefang running clamscan is the second option (which
> had worked until sometime ago). So I configured mimedefang for clamscan.
Maybe it's time to ask the mimedefang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric Rostetter wrote:
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
attention from the developers:
>
> They are well aware of it.
>
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
1.2 MB
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
>
>> clamdscan solved that issue, although I would have appreciated this
>> effect *before* I upgraded to a newer release.
>
> This keeps comming up, perhaps it needs to be addressed in the docs.
>
> Could you tell us w
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Peter Boosten wrote:
> clamdscan solved that issue, although I would have appreciated this
> effect *before* I upgraded to a newer release.
This keeps comming up, perhaps it needs to be addressed in the docs.
Could you tell us why you used clamscan instead of clamd/clamdscan
Eric Rostetter wrote:
>
> 1) Yes, it is slow.
> 2) Yes, it wasn't always like this (and hence you could down-grade to an older
> version if you needed).
> 3) Newer versions are faster (see below).
> 4) Yes, it still can be used for a mail server (I know, as I'm still
> using it).
The latt
>> > I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
>> > attention from the developers:
They are well aware of it.
>> > Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
>> > 1.2 MB and it takes about 1 minute. Same file with a commercial scanner
>> > take
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Spuhler
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 8:37 PM
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow
>
> I posted o
On Sunday June 17, 2007 at 03:07:52 (PM) Thomas Spuhler wrote:
{snip]
> Thanks for clarification. I saw a similar thread on the Mandriva cooker
> mailing list.
> The commercial antivirus program isn't the demonized. I don't want to list
> the
> name on a mailing list.
I think I can safely say
On Sunday 17 June 2007 11:52, Daniel Staal wrote:
> --As of June 17, 2007 11:44:04 AM -0700, Thomas Spuhler is alleged to have
>
> said:
> >> Use clamdscan instead of clamscan.
> >
> > That doesn't improve clamscan.
> > (I can use a free commercial that is really fast)
>
> --As for the rest, it is
--As of June 17, 2007 11:44:04 AM -0700, Thomas Spuhler is alleged to have
said:
>> Use clamdscan instead of clamscan.
>
> That doesn't improve clamscan.
> (I can use a free commercial that is really fast)
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Your problem is the startup time of clamscan, and has been
On Sunday 17 June 2007 08:43, Török Edvin wrote:
> On 6/17/07, Thomas Spuhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
> > attention from the developers:
> > Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
> > 1.2 MB and
On 6/17/07, Thomas Spuhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more attention
> from the developers:
> Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about 1.2 MB
> and it takes about 1 minute.
Use clamdscan instead of clamsca
On Saturday 16 June 2007 19:07, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Thomas Spuhler wrote:
> > I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more
> > attention from the developers:
> > Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about
> > 1.2 MB and it takes about 1 minute.
Thomas Spuhler wrote:
> I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more attention
> from the developers:
> Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about 1.2
> MB
> and it takes about 1 minute. Same file with a commercial scanner takes 2 sec.
> This wasn
I posted on another list as well, but thought this may gets more attention
from the developers:
Clamscan is extremely slow and CPU hungry. clamscan a pdf file of about 1.2 MB
and it takes about 1 minute. Same file with a commercial scanner takes 2 sec.
This wasn't always like this. As a result, c
46 matches
Mail list logo
