On Thursday 17 Mar 2005 14:32, Nabin Limbu wrote:
Hi,
What is the difference between using clamd only and clamd + clamav-milter
with
mailserver. What additional benefits do we get while using clamav-milter.
Security. On some platforms it will be more secure to have clamav-milter do
the
Hi,
What is the difference between using clamd only and clamd + clamav-milter
with
mailserver. What additional benefits do we get while using clamav-milter.
Clamav-milter is a milter interface for sendmail. Although not the only
way to interface clam with a host running sendmail, it is
Nabin Limbu said:
Hi,
What is the difference between using clamd only and clamd + clamav-milter
with
mailserver. What additional benefits do we get while using clamav-milter.
Regards
Nabin Limbu
The milter is the component that communicates with both the smtp server
and the clamav
Dennis Peterson wrote:
It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to scanning
for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has
failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to
know.
The reverse is also true. There is no point in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wanted us to know:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to scanning
for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has
failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to
know.
The reverse is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dennis Peterson wrote:
It is frequently most efficient to test for spam content prior to
scanning
for viruses - there is no point in virus scanning a file if it has
failed a spam content test. That's more than you asked but not bad to
know.
The reverse is also true.
Dennis Peterson wanted us to know:
Of the two processes (spam scanning and virus scanning), spam scanning is
more resource-intensive (at least the way I do it) - so I virus scan
first, and spam-scan second.
Interesting - that is exactly the opposite of my experiences so I'm
interested in
Todd Lyons wrote:
Dennis Peterson wanted us to know:
But yes, no point in double-damning a message when once will do, and
I guess that was my point, and clearly the most efficient method
should be first.
When a milter is configured to reject at the SMTP level, it never gets
to the second
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wanted us to know:
When a milter is configured to reject at the SMTP level, it never gets
to the second milter in the chain. So if clamav-milter detects a
virus, the CPU intensive content scanning process never sees the
message (hence much lower load).
Your site policies
Todd Lyons said:
Dennis Peterson wanted us to know:
Of the two processes (spam scanning and virus scanning), spam scanning
is
more resource-intensive (at least the way I do it) - so I virus scan
first, and spam-scan second.
Interesting - that is exactly the opposite of my experiences so I'm
10 matches
Mail list logo
