Fortunately, with Symantec, you can place exclusions by name. (ex: .edb, .stm, .log, .bin).
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsAt least I think I can do this...
I wanted to post this question so that it shows up as an answer for folks who actually do a search when they ask their question related to problems with their file-level based scanner on their Exchange server.
When using a improperly configured file level scanner on Exchange, you can end up with slow performance of your mail system, a corrupted database, store.exe memory growing way to large (and it grows large by default), problems with transaction logs E#######.log, missing attachments, problems with the priv.edb (and other .edb's named differently within Exchange Enterprise, etc.
Note: I really hate the long URLs that are created when using Domino to publish webpages.
Considerations on installing Symantec or Norton AntiVirus Corporate Edition on mail servers
http://service1.symantec.c
Best practices for Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 9.x Auto-Protect on a Microsoft Exchange server
http://service1.symantec.c
Preventing Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 9.x from scanning the Microsoft Exchange directory structure
http://service1.symantec.c
http://support.microsoft.c
Recommendations for troubleshooting an Exchange Server computer with antivirus software installed.
Note: If anyone else has information on this topic, please feel free to post it. I will split points. Otherwise, I will ask one of the Admins to PAQ it. HOWEVER, it would be really nice to get some additional information in the question/response.
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: cjpalmerPosted on 2005-02-17 at 09:04:38ID: 13336718
Just my two cents on this one... If anyone has any experience with some other file level scanners on the exchange server, please add that. My experience as well is with Symantec. But, my personal opinion is to not put a file level scanner on your exchange server at all, and here's why:
You have a file scanner installed and properly configured to exclude files in their directories and the like. Then you go on vacation. There is an exchange problem and "Junior Exchange Admin" (who probably doesn't touch exchange when you are there) tries to fix it and moves some files around so they aren't covered by the exclusions anymore... BAMMM you have corruption in your store and the problem is all the more worse.
Or you miss something in your configuration and something isn't excluded... BAMMM again.
The way I work it, to minimize my exposure is run file scanners on all the client machines and file servers. Anytime I download it from the internet, I place it in a location where I know it will be scanned. Unless it is an emergency download, I typically leave it on disk for a few days just in case I had downloaded a corrupted file so that I can be sure that I have an updated dat to catch the "new" virus when I access it for actual install.
It has worked well for me for over 6 years doing it that way.
Charles