On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:54:24PM -0700, Blake Mitchell wrote: > Ron Peterson wrote: > >On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:58:16PM -0400, Ron Peterson wrote: > >>On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Kneschke.Lars wrote: > >>>Ron Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > >>>>I don't see any reference to secure imap/pop on the wiki features > >>>>request page. As far as I can tell, there is no ssl/tls support yet, > >>>>correct? > >>>Search the wiki for stunnel or follow this link: > >>>http://www.dbmail.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=stunnel > >>Maybe as a stopgap, but I'd prefer native TLS. > > > >Just to clarify, so I don't simply sound difficult (which I am anyway, > >but I try to hide it...) > > > >I've found inet (& xinet) to be a real network performance bottleneck. > >I just think it would be a shame to shackle dbmail's performance > >potential this way. > > That's part of the reason I run stunnel as a stand alone daemon. > > I'm a fan of the modular approach, so I like that stunnel is distinct > from dbmail. What do you see as the down side of that arrangement?
Damn. I didn't know you could do that. The only downside I see right now is that I haven't kept up with stunnel. -- Ron Peterson Network & Systems Manager Mount Holyoke College http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rpeterso
