Re: A question about Postfix and virus scanning
- Dear friends,
Thanks for this nice discussion. Actually, as a project, we are going to deliver an e-mail architecture which supports over 1000000 users. We use Postfix, courier-imap, amavisd-new, spamassassin and clamav and of course the tools needed to balance the load between multiple instances of the mentioned tools. We use specmail to test our architecture. Recently, we have introduced our intended e-mail filtering platform consisting amavisd-new, spamassassin and clamav to the architecture and we have observed significant delivery time decrease regarding Postifx. As a way out, we thought of the ways which made it possible to do offline virus scanning, but actually we have found that amavisd-new together with it's filtering tools is a serious performance bottleneck.
I really appreciate suggestions regarding this scenario.
Ali Majdzadeh Kohbanani2009/12/1 Thomas Harold <thomas-lists@...>On 11/30/2009 3:11 AM, Ali Majdzadeh wrote:Did you only try virus filtering within amavisd-new, or did you also try
Stan, Hi Thanks for your detailed response. Actually, the main reason
which drove us toward performing virus scanning as an offline process
was performance. As we deal with large amounts of e-mails, we found
the way amavisd-new or other filtering management tools performing
filtering too slow. We intended to somehow decrease the amount of
load which amavisd-new or similar tools impose on the architecture.
using the clamav-milter at SMTP time? How much are you blocking at SMTP
time and how much is getting through to amavisd for scoring?
(On a side note, I'm curious whether the new clamav milter in ClamAV
0.95 is faster and better then letting the messages reach amavisd-new.
I use the clamav-milter and have disabled virus scanning on the
- Jerry wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:33:51 -0500The difference is obvious: everyone loves to hate Microsoft and Google
> Michael Katz <mknews@...> replied:
>> Responding to support lists is not a sales strategy, and if it was it
>> would be the worst strategy imaginable because it doesn't work. We
>> sell software because we have to make a living but answering on lists
>> is more of a personality trait of mine than anything else.
>> Regardless, the open source vs. commercial argument is largely dying
>> because the real argument, in the US at least, is becoming Google vs.
>> anything else. Their free offerings are ending the need for Postfix,
>> Amavis, what I make and countless other email products - commercial,
>> open source or otherwise. Somehow we have all become addicted to the
>> free stuff that billionairesgive us while spurning the hard work of a
>> few entrepreneurs trying to make a living. We are a tiny little
>> company and I answer stuff to try to be helpful, that's it. Save the
>> cries of evil for people that matter like Google, we are insignificant
> IMHO, Google is employing the business method know as "deferred
> gratification". It is so transparent that I find it hard to believe
> that there has not been more chatter regarding its business dealings.
> It appears that only now have some large corporations and government
> entities started to take action against them. What really annoys me is
> that when Microsoft lowered prices on some of its retail products they
> were accused of using the same business tactic. When Google does
> essentially the same thing, barely a word is spoken. Too many users have
> become functionally socialist in regards to software.
can do no wrong. Simple as that.