Re: antivirus recomendation?
On (20/11/03 23:39), Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:15:05PM -0500 or thereabouts, tallison@tacocat.net wrote:
> >
> > You can look into clamAV.
> > But if SpamAssassin is too resource intensive I think you will find
> > antivirus scanners to be even more so.
> >
> > clamav+spamassassin scanning in daemon mode takes 10-20 seconds per message.
> > spamassassin scanning in daemon mode takes 2-3 seconds per message.
> > This is based on a Pentiume-II 400MHz 512MB RAM.
> >
> >
> > A very solid set-up that I have is to use postfix + amavisd-new + clamav +
> > spamassassin. It is a little intense in that it will readily suck up the
> > better part of my 512MB of RAM. But it does it all.
> >
> > However, I have to limit the processes to ~10. Still tweaking the values.
> >
> > I'm not sure what resources you are worried about, but I've given you some
> > stats to help you decide. AntiVirus scanning is pretty intense work.
>
> I know, which is why I didn't want to add to it with SA. I've ran SA b4
> on a busy gateway, it's atrocious. Spamprobe, with it's Bayesian
> filtering is much, much faster (written in C++).
>
> Have you any experience at all with any of the following:
> sanitizer, xbill, and amavis-ng?
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I'm attempting to get some qualitative
> feedback on the various binaries available to me. I've added a backports
> source to my aptitude list, so I'm ready to get cracking.
To deal with Swen - quite a few people on the list use mailfilter with
fetchmail to remove the stuff before download. If you check the archives, therehas been quite a lot of posts on this.
Regards
Clive
--
http://www.clivemenzies.co.uk
strategies for business
Reply to: