Re: [vchkpw] Re: domain/.qmail-user vs user/.qmail [was: Per user .qmail patch]
DAve wrote: Jeremy Kister wrote: On 12/16/2005 6:43 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote: What's the advantage of this over .qmail-user-list in the main domain directory ? With this change deleting a user removes all the users .qmail (.vpopmail?) files. Currently I have my management system delete the user, but that does not clean up any dot files they have, as they are in the domain directory. Which spawns an equally interesting question -- why have user/.qmail at all? I cant think of any scenarios where user/.qmail is needed.. user/.qmail hurts performance, as qmail-local has to call vdelivermail instead of just dealing with the mail itself. Currently if I need to create a .qmail file in the domain directory I am still calling vdelivermail (if I want to use things like valias, which I do). For a copy I currently add a vdelivermail line and a address line to a .qmail-user file. #cat pixelhammer.com/.qmail-dave |/home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is that wrong? Probably. Depends on what you need to do. qmail-local can handle forwarding to local or remote users as well as writing into Maildir's or exec'ing programs. vdelivermail was written for the .qmail-default file. The idea being, once qmail-local exhausts the .qmail files then the email is for a vpopmail account. i think you're right -- neither user/.qmail, user/.qmail-ext nor user/.vpopmail are needed. I disagree ;^) Me too. Ken Jones
Re: [vchkpw] Re: domain/.qmail-user vs user/.qmail [was: Per user .qmail patch]
Jeremy Kister wrote: On 12/16/2005 6:43 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote: What's the advantage of this over .qmail-user-list in the main domain directory ? With this change deleting a user removes all the users .qmail (.vpopmail?) files. Currently I have my management system delete the user, but that does not clean up any dot files they have, as they are in the domain directory. Which spawns an equally interesting question -- why have user/.qmail at all? I cant think of any scenarios where user/.qmail is needed.. user/.qmail hurts performance, as qmail-local has to call vdelivermail instead of just dealing with the mail itself. Currently if I need to create a .qmail file in the domain directory I am still calling vdelivermail (if I want to use things like valias, which I do). For a copy I currently add a vdelivermail line and a address line to a .qmail-user file. #cat pixelhammer.com/.qmail-dave |/home/vpopmail/bin/vdelivermail '' bounce-no-mailbox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is that wrong? i think you're right -- neither user/.qmail, user/.qmail-ext nor user/.vpopmail are needed. I disagree ;^) DAve
Re: [vchkpw] Re: domain/.qmail-user vs user/.qmail [was: Per user .qmail patch]
Jeremy Kister wrote: On 12/16/2005 6:43 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote: What's the advantage of this over .qmail-user-list in the main domain directory ? Which spawns an equally interesting question -- why have user/.qmail at all? I cant think of any scenarios where user/.qmail is needed.. Because user has rights to manage the files in domain/user/ and only postmaster, admin-users can manage domain/. Its more a qmailadmin issue.
[vchkpw] Re: domain/.qmail-user vs user/.qmail [was: Per user .qmail patch]
On 12/16/2005 6:43 PM, Rick Macdougall wrote: > What's the advantage of this over .qmail-user-list in the main domain > directory ? Which spawns an equally interesting question -- why have user/.qmail at all? I cant think of any scenarios where user/.qmail is needed.. user/.qmail hurts performance, as qmail-local has to call vdelivermail instead of just dealing with the mail itself. i think you're right -- neither user/.qmail, user/.qmail-ext nor user/.vpopmail are needed. -- Jeremy Kister http://jeremy.kister.net./
