[Mimedefang] Anyone using File::Scan?

[Kayne Kruse]

> 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I've seen previous posts stating clamd
was faster than File::Scan as well as more up to date.  Clam to me is a heck
of alot easier to update than File::Scan.  

I run both really, I scan through clamd first however, then hand off to
File::Scan, again for the above reason, so that is why I wouldnt mind some
clarity.  

KK