OpenMacNews wrote: >
> tim,
>
> all clear. thx.
>
> sounds, the, like a pretty simple decision *4 me* ... that is, to use
> the same approach as you.
>
> cheers,
>
> richard
>
>
> -- On August 1, 2005 8:04:29 PM -0400 Timothy Spear
> <tspear@???> wrote:
>
>
>> Because you already have the SpamAssassin connection completed and/or you
>> are performing the scanning at delivery time when performance is less an
>> issue.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OpenMacNews [mailto:OpenMacNews@speakeasy.net]
>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:02 PM
>> To: Timothy Spear
>> Cc: exim-users@???
>> Subject: RE: [exim] which approach for: exiscan, clamav & spamassassin ?
>>
>> hi tim,
>>
>> thx 4 the reply =)
>>
>>> I did the exiscan direct to ClamAV and then SpamAssassin. This is to
>>
>> reduce
>>
>>> load on the server, since I perform it is part of the SMTP Data ACL.
>>> Virus
>>> email is rejected before the call to SpamAssassin. Since SpamAssassin
>>> will
>>> run all rules which apply, even if the spam score has been passed, I
>>> would
>>> end up running spam filtering rules against viral email.
>>
>>
>> that seems clear enuf.
>>
>> as i think abt the relative performance issues -- no, i haven't (yet)
>> done
>> any
>> tests -- tho, your common-sense approach makes me wonder why one WOULD
>> use
>> the
>> SpamAssassin-using-ClamAV-plugin approach ...
>>
>>
>> hmmm .....
>>
>>
>> richard
>
>
>
>
