> > I'm using in production since a long time also a virus- > > check matcher: IsInfected. > > What are its dependencies? No dependencies: it spawns whatever command-line anti-virus product is available in the server. I use it with McAfee, but I understand from some messages in the lists that there are other IsInfected users with other anti-virus products.
We could ask in the server-user about it. > > > As I always found a lot of perplexity (that I didn't understand) > > in the James lists about virus-check matchers, I never committed > > it to CVS. > > I'm not understanding your point. Sorry for not having been clear :-) I just meant that it has been pointed out several times (don't remeber by whom) that having James, as in my case, spawn a non-java process (the command-line anti-virus) as root in the server could be itself a risk, because if such process becomes itself infected it could be dangerous. IMHO I think that this risk is lower than letting a virus come in. But I may be missing something. Another perplexity is about performance (see Cesar Bonadio's http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=5874). This is a problem when the thruput is high, and some other solution should be looked for (see again Cesar Bonadio's http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=8532), but I think that better performing solutions are very specific to antivirus products, while IsInfected is more generic and "open". In any case, IsInfected is has no performance problems in my production site (about 200 messages/hour, 250 users), and (IMO) it could get up to 5 times that without problems. In any case, I'm not scanning *every* message, but only those having attachments, as this is were viruses reside - unless I'm missing something? Please comment :-) Vincenzo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
