From: Liam Bedford (lbedford at domain wbtsystems.com)
Date: Fri 05 May 2000 - 14:29:02 IST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Hecking" <lhecking at domain nmrc.ucc.ie>
To: <ilug at domain 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:02 GMT