> >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run > >> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there.
> RobertH wrote: > > why do the opposite of the logical? On 03.01.09 17:42, Matt Kettler wrote: > Apparently the OP feels that clamav is heavy-weight enough to be worth > shortcircuiting before it. I'd disagree myself, and do it the way Justin > does (clamav first and shortcircuit everything else). I also agree clamav is more lightweight than SA. I run clamav-milter, (runs before spamass-milter). Since I don't want/need viruses nor phishes, I am happy to drop them. This issue was already discussed some time ago. I don't know where do these informations come from. Luis, could you explain where did you get the feeling that ClamAV takes more CPU time than SpamAssassin? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
