[Mimedefang] Anyone using File::Scan?

[David F. Skoll]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Matthew S. Cramer wrote:

> Due to its speed I will continue to use it as my first scanner.

I don't understand the logic behind this.  In our case, something like
1.1% of our total mail volume contains a virus.  That means 98.9% of
the time, you'd end up running all three virus scanners.  And if File::Scan
is perfect at catching viruses, it means that 1.1% of the time, you
wouldn't have to run Clam or your third virus scanner.  If File::Scan
isn't perfect, then the performance benefit decreases even from this
small amount.

So I don't agree with the performance argument.  In my opinion, the only
valid reason to run File::Scan *and* Clam is if you think File::Scan
will catch some viruses that Clam will miss.

Regards,

David.