On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:15:05PM -0500 or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
--
When I was in school, I cheated on my metaphysics exam: I looked into
the soul of the boy sitting next to me.
-- Woody Allen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
