If you don't mind my asking, why don't you care for NFS?
--Doug
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Guardiani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Doug Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]; vpopmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
You're right
PROTECTED]; vpopmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
You're right. I don't care for NFS.
That's why I suggested this.
--
Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:56, Dave Weiner wrote:
On Sunday 23 February 2003 21:56, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
OK. Again, I admit lack of experience here. But, it still seems like a
vpopmail specific protocol would be faster than transfering and modifying
files over NFS. Does everyone
Hi !!
If you dislike NFS, then why did you go with qmail to begin with?
That was the target for qmail. To use NFS without file locking.
I hope this never reaches djb since I'm 100% sure he never
thougth qmail to be designed for Network Failure System... :-)
=d0Mi=
At 12:01 AM 02-24-2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi !!
If you dislike NFS, then why did you go with qmail to begin with?
That was the target for qmail. To use NFS without file locking.
I hope this never reaches djb since I'm 100% sure he never
thougth qmail to be designed for Network Failure
How about this for an Idea. Since I believe that we all agree in the
power of Qmail and its superiority over the other systems. I think that
we leave that portion of Qmail and Vpopmail alone.
As a suggestion I think that Jesse did bring up some valid points when
it comes to the administration of
On Sunday 23 February 2003 21:56, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
OK. Again, I admit lack of experience here. But, it still seems like a
vpopmail specific protocol would be faster than transfering and modifying
files over NFS. Does everyone really think that NFS would be faster?
First off, I've
Greetings list,
I'm sure people have considered this before, but I'd like to collect everyone's
thoughts on the idea I'm about to present:
VPopMail as a daemon
What does everyone think about the possibility of turning vpopmail into a daemon?
Complete with network ports and
] vpopmail as a daemon
Greetings list,
I'm sure people have considered this before, but I'd like to collect
everyone's thoughts on the idea I'm about to present:
VPopMail as a daemon
What does everyone think about the possibility of turning vpopmail into a
daemon? Complete
I agree with that it would make life alot easier to integrate other
web-based email apps. I currently use vpopmail with a mysql backend and
have compiled in the valias support. This works great except that if I
use qmailadmin I loose the valias(mysql) support as it only creates a
.qmail file in
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Guardiani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vpopmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 10:03 AM
Subject: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
Greetings list,
I'm sure people have considered this before, but I'd like to collect
everyone's thoughts
] vpopmail as a daemon
Greetings list,
I'm sure people have considered this before, but I'd like to collect
everyone's thoughts on the idea I'm about to present:
VPopMail as a daemon
What does everyone think about the possibility of turning vpopmail into a
daemon
On Sunday 23 February 2003 19:26, Ron Culler wrote:
I agree with that it would make life alot easier to integrate other
web-based email apps. I currently use vpopmail with a mysql backend and
have compiled in the valias support. This works great except that if I
use qmailadmin I loose the
Hi,
On Sunday 23 February 2003 19:03, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
What does everyone think about the possibility of turning vpopmail
into a daemon? Complete with network ports and the like. It would
allow for a much more distributed architecture, IMHO.
How about:
ssh -l vpopmail
- Original Message -
From: Anders Brander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
Hi,
On Sunday 23 February 2003 19:03, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
What does everyone think about the possibility
Hi,
Well, I don't see the need. vpopmail was made for qmail.
Qmail invokes vpopmail using vdelivermail.
What exactly would you daemonize? You would only want to
make a daemon for things that are used *very* frequently
and you need the extra speed. The only thing I see is
authentication, for
- Original Message -
From: Brian Kolaci [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
Hi,
Well, I don't see the need. vpopmail was made for qmail.
Qmail invokes vpopmail using
Well, I don't see the need. vpopmail was made for qmail.
Qmail invokes vpopmail using vdelivermail.
What exactly would you daemonize?
Authentication and access to vpopmail control functions. Creating users,
domains, aliases, etc...
Of coarse parts of vpopmail
- Original Message -
From: Brian Kolaci [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
snip
Like I said before, we already have the daemons. That's
qmail-smtpd, authdaemond, and the POP
19 matches
Mail list logo
