> Someone must have done this. Is there a particular order that's better?
I run spamass-milter before clamav-milter to minimize frivolous scanning. With either order, incoming mail has to pass the spam check AND the virus check before delivery, but failing just one will result in rejection (and thus the second check is skipped). By shear numbers, spam overshadows viruses by a very significant margin. Therefore, checking all spam for viruses will create far more load than checking all viruses for spam. On top of this, Spamassassin can detect many viruses on its own. The only case in which it is advisable to scan for viruses first is when there is an onslaught of virus-laden email, and I don't think those are common enough to justify scanning for viruses first. Let's hope Wednesday (Conficker) doesn't change this! I also use milter-greylist before both spamass-milter and clamav-milter as it is by far the least resource-intensive check (only a db lookup!) and greylisting kills over 80% of my incoming mail. You can take this idea or leave it. Note: greylisting requires custom tweaking and user training and should not be taken lightly. A conservative example case is to delay only traffic from Windows servers (most bots run Windows, few relays do). -Adam _______________________________________________ Spamass-milt-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/spamass-milt-list
