[Mimedefang] mimedefang and clamav

[WBrown at e1b.org]

mimedefang-bounces at lists.roaringpenguin.com wrote on 04/06/2005 03:38:22 
PM:

> I find that clamav is less overhead than mimedefang.  If I can call 
clamav 
> first, before mimedefang and discard any emails be it gets to 
mimedefang, I 
> think i will see a savings on the proc.

Wouldn't the advantage of blocking unsafe extensions before even calling 
clamd outweigh make up for the need to call mail-clamav?

And if you tell sendmail that there are two milters, doesn't it call each 
one at every step of the SMTP conversation?  So either way, aren't you 
invoking MD repeatedly before you actually scan the message with 
milter-clamav?  And you loose all those opprotunities to reject the 
message as junk (bogus HELO, RCPT TO, etc values) before you even bother 
checking for viruses.