[ILUG] [OT] Updated Sophos file [was: New Virus warning]

[Liam Bedford]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Hecking" <lhecking at nmrc.ucc.ie>
To: <ilug at linux.ie>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ILUG] [OT] Updated Sophos file [was: New Virus warning]


>
> > <slaps himself on head> ah yes.. that's why its the LOCAL mailer.. :)
>
>  Damn, who would knwo such things ... :-)
>
> > i take it the virus scanning software isn't too resource intensive then?
>
>  It is, it is ...
>
>  I have described my setup in
>   http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/postfix0004/183.html
>
>  And I'm quite sure that a 486 class machine would not be sufficient
>  in our particular environment. It would probably work fine on average,
>  even on peak times (1000 deliveries/hour - still not much), but the real
>  killers are a) large attachments, and b) attachments with many files -
.zip,
>  .tgz etc.
>
>  Though, the performance of amavis-perl is probably at least an order
>  of magnitude better than AMaViS (the original, shell script).

As far as resources go, I have the original shell version of AmaVis
running on a Dual PII-350, and you feel it when there's something being
scanned. It's zip/other archives that are the major pain, and I can't
tell you how many mails an hour we deal with (I don't know OTOMH), but
the machine does other things as well (squid/ftp/topclass), so that
may be skewing things.

What's the diff with the perl version Lars? Is it worth using, and is
it more maintained?

L.
---
Liam Bedford                  | What we've got here is, failure to
System Administrator          | communicate. Some man you just can't
WBT Systems, Block 2,         | reach... so you get what we had
Harcourt Centre, Harcourt St. | here last week, which is the way
01-4170100                    | he wants it.