include much needed antivirus products in FC2

[Bill Anderson]

On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 11:10, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 12:55, Adam Debus wrote:
> > > Then you're inappropriately increasing the load on a central machine
> > > rather than decentralizing scanning to the desktop windows machine,
> > > where it belongs.
> > >
> > 
> > Perhaps...but in 4 years of working at an ISP, I've discovered that most
> > users do not install it no matter how many times you tell them that it's a
> > good idea. I've got users I end up disconnecting and blocking from the 'net
> > about once a week. Corporate LAN support wasn't much better.
> > 
> > It doesn't add that much more load, and the benifits of having the mail
> > scanned before it hits an end users machine greatly outweighs the cost of
> > purchasing an additional processor, or a faster processor. That is, of
> > course, assuming you're using the mail server for more then 10 people. If
> > you're not, or you just don't want it, don't use the AV software.
> 
> Try this sometime - process 100000+ pieces of mail a day and see if AV
> scanning doesn't add much load? AV scanning centrally does NOT scale.

Only 100K/day?? I've got "central" AV and spam scanning running on
moderately sized (AKA powerful a few years ago) RH7.3 powered machines
that are handling over a quarter million emails per day. No problems
with load (other than the crap software we are currently purging from
the system). I have this on four separate machines. Yes, it's a very
busy domain.

-- 
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
bill at noreboots.com