[Mimedefang] Problem running clamd but not clamscan

[dimon at intellinetinc.com]

Quoting Ole Craig <olc at cs.umass.edu>:

> On 01/28/04 at 08:32, 'twas brillig and Scott Harris scrobe:
> > Subject: RE: [Mimedefang] Problem running clamd but not clamscan
> >
> >
> > > Scott, et al -
> > > 	I had similar issues with clamd versus clamscan (see
> > > lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2003-December/01
> > > 8671.html)
> > > but nobody else seemed to (or at least, nobody responded) and
> > > I gave up due to lack of time. (Figuring, "I've got a
> > > solution that works for my current mail load, why fsck with it...")
> > >
> > > 		Ole
> > > --
> >
> > I'm tempted to take the same route, except for the fact that
> > I noticed the filter time has gone up dramatically:
> 
> Scott -
> 	The problem I had seemed to be that MD wasn't actually talking
> to clamd. (Do you catch the EICAR text file with clamd enabled?) It
> would make sense that MD processed significantly faster if it's not
> incurring the virusscan overhead at all. Maybe we could have someone
> with a working MD<->clamd setup try your speed test and report the
> difference in MD time between clamav and clamd...
> 

First, I started using clamd, but clamd was dying for some reason on damaged 
zip archives, so I switched to clamscan till that issue will be resolved.
Myself I prefer to use clamd, but I don't wand it to die when damaged zip 
archive arrives. I've already sent a sample of such archive to bugs at clamav.net, 
so I'll wain and see what will happen next.

Best regards,
Dmitry