----- 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 & IMAP daemons. The only > thing left is the admin stuff, which is where I worry about security. I was under the impression that authdaemond doesn't work very well with vpopmail. We constantly have to tell people to disable it on the sqwebmail list. <snip> > > 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. In > any case, you still can easily get by without NFS, but replace it > with a webserver and/or sshd. I don't think that's a fair statement. Qmail is a great alternative to sendmail even without NFS. > > > > > Also, I'll note here that I don't yet have need for a cluster, and have > never implemented/used a vpopmail+NFS cluster. Therefore, I > > realize that vpopmail+NFS may very well be an excellent solution, and that I > may just have an incorrect idea in my head regarding > > the speed and overhead that is required to run NFS. > > There have been *many* improvements to NFS. The latest is very feature > rich, has hooks for security, etc. NFS is a good thing, especially > if you start looking at the alternatives (i.e. NetBIOS). 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? Thanks for the reply. Jesse > > > > Brian > Galaxy Networks, Inc. > > > >
