You're right. I don't care for NFS.
That's why I suggested this.
Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605
423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f)
We are actively looking for companies that do a lot of long
distance faxing and want to cut their long distance bill by
up to 50%. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vpopmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "vpopmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 10:03 AM
> Subject: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
> > Greetings list,
> > I'm sure people have considered this before, but I'd like to collect
> everyone's thoughts on the idea I'm about to present:
> > VPopMail as a daemon
> > --------------------
> > What does everyone think about the possibility of turning vpopmail into a
> daemon? Complete with network ports and the like. It would
> > allow for a much more distributed architecture, IMHO.
> > Currently, if someone wants to run qmailadmin on a separate web server,
> they have to create an NFS share, right?
> What's wrong with that?
> > Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to provide a vpopmail network protocol
> that allows connections from remote administrative utilities?
> You mean something that takes requests over the network and stores user
> information in a database?
> > Possibly even implement support for vpopmail clusters (although I'm
> thinking you'd have to have a crazy amount of users to need a
> > cluster! Vpopmail is pretty darn efficient.)
> I've already got a cluster. It works great.
> > Programs like sqwebmail would benefit by not having to be recompiled every
> time vpopmail is upgraded. The port protocol wouldn't
> > change much between versions, and developers could maintain backward
> The only time you need to recompile sqwebmail is if the storage format for
> the users change. At this point, you'd also need to recompile the software
> that talks over the network. Either way you lose.
> > Sqwebmail WOULDN'T be able to run on a separate server, as it accesses
> maildirs directly, but at least administration, upgrades, and
> > general package stability would likely improve a bit.
> My sqwebmail install is distributed across machines. Works great.
> The general idea is "less code is going to have less bugs", not "more code
> is going to have less bugs".
> > Who knows. One might even be able to implement a maildir access protocol.
> But that would probably just duplicate the functionality
> > of the IMAP protocol.
> Now that would just be silly.
> > Can anyone else think of a good reason why vpopmail might benefit from
> being made into a daemon?
> Only if you were for some reason religiously opposed to using NFS to
> accomplish all the things above. Then again, you could use samba or afs. So
> no, I can't think of a good reason.
> > Can anyone think of a really good reason why it shouldn't? (Other than the
> time it would take to code everything.)
> It's too complicated for something that's already small, fast, and simple.
> None of the things you suggest can't already be done, or don't really need
> to be done.