There seems to be some dispute on this matter, but my advice is this:

Kerberized POP is the way to go. Sendmail and other tools that are
expecting to deal with normal Unix file systems as mail spools don't
interact well with AFS. Furthermore, in a large environment POP
simplifies your life dramatically. You can distribute the mail load to
mail servers throughout your organization in a simple and transparent
way and centrally mange mail very easily. Your users in Tokyo don't
end up depending on a machine in New York for their mail and vice
versa, and you don't load your WAN links unnecessarily, but the user
in Tokyo automatically gets their mail when they travel to New York
without having to think about it. You never end up with mail
accumulating in your mail spool because users are too stupid to move
it into their directory -- they end up with the mail moved out of the
spool every time they read it. You can move users around in a properly
configured distributed POP based system just by changing a single
system database and the user never notices. No single point of failure
exists for your organization's mail system. PC and Mac users who
aren't integrated into the corporate distributed file system can read
mail, too, without needing special tools. Overall, its a huge win.

Your AFS users already have kerberos credentials, so KPOP should be no
real bother for them.

POP servers and clients are widely available in freely available
software for virtually all operating systems.

Perry

Jorge Cisternas says:
> Hello:
>       I'm trying to configure a distributed mail system based on the AFS.
> The first approach I try was to link the /usr/mail (or /usr/spool/mail) to
> a directory on the AFS environment, so every workstation read the same spool
> directory. By now this is working ok, but isn't any more efficient way of 
> doing this?
> 
>       Is it recommended to use pop from the workstations? (we should integrat
e
> PCs and Macs in the near future) Any pop mail reader for HPUX 9.X?
> 
>       Thanks. 
> --
>         Jorge Cisternas
>       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Reply via email to