[Mimedefang] Truncated connections causing multiple resends onincoming mail

[Kris Deugau]

Kimmo Jaskari wrote:
> Anyway, to get somewhat back to the topic; my machine(s) have been
> running nicely over the weekend with uvscan instead of Clam. Load is
> higher but so is throughput (and we're only talking about 0.5-0.6, so
> not very loaded at all.) 
> 
> I do notice that uvscan doesn't seem to be catching things like phishing
> where Clam did - but obviously I'll need beefier hardware to run clam, I
> mean 90 seconds to do a simple scan is obviously unacceptable.

I don't recall seeing earlier in the thread;  were you having trouble
with Clam 0.90, or 0.88?  0.90 has taken a jump in CPU and memory usage,
and if you're already on a marginal-but-stable box, the extra load may
push it over any one of a number of limits.

I held off on upgrading SpamAssassin beyond 2.64 (patched for DNS-based
URI tagging) and ClamAV beyond 0.88 on two systems because they would
not have been able to keep up with the hardware on hand.  An opportunity
to upgrade them from 7-year-old technology to 5-year-old technology
finally allowed me to upgrade SA and Clam without causing them to
(virtually) self-destruct.

-kgd