On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:24:11 +0000 Mike Meredith <mike.meredith@???> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:07:13 -0500 (EST), Richard Welty wrote:
> > rather than behaving reactively to these things, i suggest it's well
> > worthwhile to install exiscan and clamav. the clamav folks got a
> I don't like relying on virus checkers to block this kind of thing;
> besides which virus checkers take a lot more machine resources than
> simple checks. Mass outbreaks have been known to swamp mail servers.
perhaps, but then, i only depend on clamav to spot things like iframe
and viruses inside zips; i use a simple extension acl to block exe, scr,
pif, etc. extensions to keep the clamav load down.
in the past, i've tended to spec small boxes for mail servers unless
high volume email was part of the business. i tend to spec them a
lot larger now, as i regard virus checking as a necessary mail
server function. it sucks, but that seems to be the way it is.
actually, my mail server's main business is serving a bunch of
majordomo mailing lists. it's only a 266Mhz Pentium II, and it's
handling this episode just fine. load averages are less than 2,
and setiathome (niced) is getting about 90% of the cpu.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@???
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
