[Mimedefang] My MD install went wacko

[Justin Shore]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Jason Englander wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Justin Shore wrote:
> 
> > just upgraded to beta5.  It detects CLAMSCAN, CLAMD, and FPROT at
> > configure time.  I'm assuming it calls both clamscan and clamd.  If so
> > then that's redundant.  I'm not sure which I should disable though.  IIRC
> > you're supposed to use clamdscan (note the d) when using the clamd daemon,
> > which I am.  I'm not sure this matters though with regards to this
> > problem.
> 
> Sorry to only read or respond to this part, but this part caught my eye...
> 
> If it detects clamscan, clamd, and f-prot it'll use whatever your filter
> says it should use.  The default filter that comes with MD will use (in
> your case), _only_ f-prot.  If you look in the filter at
> message_contains_virus() and entity_contains_virus() you'll see that they
> use the first supported scanner in the list.

Ah.  I didn't realize that.  ClamAV would probably be faster than the 
call to the non-daemonized F-Prot.  I've been thinking about disabling AV 
checks entirely to see if they are the cause of my problems.

> Given the choice between clamscan and clamd, you should definitely use
> clamd.  MD doesn't use clamdscan to use clamd,
> *_contains_virus_clamd() opens a direct unix socket connection to clamd.
> Much, much faster than using clamdscan.

Ah.  I didn't know that either.  That's good to know.  Thanks for the 
info!

Justin