[Mimedefang] Perl Mail::ClamAV

David F. Skoll dfs at roaringpenguin.com
Tue Sep 20 10:53:29 EDT 2005


John Rudd wrote:

> Output from using Mail::ClamAV :
> delta = 667

> Output from using clamd:
> delta = 65

Is your Mail::ClamAV code reloading the signature database for each
message?  That's probably what's killing the performance.  If you somehow
rework your code to load the signatures once when the filter starts up,
you might see better performance.

However, I still doubt that you'll beat clamd.  It's written in
multithreaded C, and the IPC overhead between the Perl filter and
clamd is minimal.

> I expect most of the challenge will come from posting the same results
> on the mailscanner mailing list (who all believe that Mail::ClamAV is
> the fastest way to go).

>From what I understand of Mailscanner, it calls the virus scanner once
for a large batch of queue files.  If the cost of loading the signatures is
high relative to the cost of scanning a file, then Mailscanner's approach
might make sense.

Regards,

David.



More information about the MIMEDefang mailing list