Re: Larga amount of accounts per domain - HOWTO ?
You can store your 8000 mail accounts under one user account. Each one having it's own Maildir. It will interface to courier-imap so you can use imap and/or pop3 to access each mailbox. -tony On 20 Jul 2001 16:10:31 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2001, Tony Gale wrote: > > > > > Use vmailmgr: www.vmailmgr.org > > Can U say more about its design ? > > Some time ago I was using vpopmial, but it was actually doing its job the > way I described in previous post. > So we've ended with our own vpopmail-like system > > -=Czaj-nick=- > >
Re: Larga amount of accounts per domain - HOWTO ?
Use vmailmgr: www.vmailmgr.org -tony On 20 Jul 2001 15:43:57 +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote: > > Hello! > > I need to setup another qmail server, but this time it's going to be > unusual. > So far I was doing virtual domains in usuall way, by making entries in > virtualdomians (domain -> user), assigning those "Virtual" users their > homes (via users/assgin), and place there .qmail-accountname for every > virtual mail account. > > It's a good way for small systems, it's even good if you have big number > of domains, but small number of account per domain. > > But this time I need 1 or 2 domains with about 8.000 accounts. > Well, I guess that searching one of 8000 .qmail-* files on every deliver > will kill overall system performance. > > Would you suggest better way ? > I was thinking about using full doman-user assignment via users/asign.. > > Greetings > -=Czaj-nick=- >
Re: Concurrencyremote for a specific host
There's always an exception. For example, legacy systems with strange (but conformant) IP stacks - some VMS systems for example. I would love to be able to do set per-host concurrency for such systems where I know *exactly* what the upper limit on concurrent connections it can handle is, cause it's defined in it's IP / MTA implementation. There's no point in going above this figure cause it just ties up my remote connections due to the way it handles connections above this number - i.e. it becomes a black hole. -tony On 20-Oct-99 Russell Nelson wrote: > And in neither of those cases is it an improvement to keep banging > on > the destination host. If it refuses messages, then by inference > it's > overloaded. Much better to wait until it isn't. > --- E-Mail: Tony Gale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All new: Parts not interchangeable with previous model. The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of any other person or official body.
