instead of having 2 poppers, wouldn't it be feasible to have 1 popper bind
to 2 ports, the plain 110 and the SSL one, with the encryption libs
compiled into qpopper?
or are we at a stage where this is not possible yet without some major
thought?
-Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Intergrafix Internet Services
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
http://www.asteroid-b612.org http://www.intergrafix.net
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:30:02 -0400, Karl Hoppel wrote:
>
> >I am still
> >wondering what happens when both Eudora and Outlook connect at the
> >same time - if there will ever be conflicts such as both qpopper processes
> >trying to use the same temporary files, hmm?
>
> This isn't any different from the case where you're running qpopper
> from inetd on a single port: inetd spawns a new copy of qpopper for
> each client, so there can be an arbitrary number of instances running
> at one time, and multiple instances may be attempting to access the
> same mailbox. At the same time, sendmail or another MTA may be
> receiving mail and using procmail or another MDA to store it in
> mailboxes. There are locking mechanisms to guard against corruption of
> the mailboxes from simultaneous access by multiple programs.
>
> Ken
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.sewingwitch.com/ken/
> http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
>
>
>
