----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Kolaci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon
> Like I said before, we already have the daemons. That's
> qmail-smtpd, authdaemond, and the POP & IMAP daemons. The only
> thing left is the admin stuff, which is where I worry about security.
I was under the impression that authdaemond doesn't work very well with vpopmail. We
constantly have to tell people to disable it on
the sqwebmail list.
> If you dislike NFS, then why did you go with qmail to begin with?
> That was the target for qmail. To use NFS without file locking. In
> any case, you still can easily get by without NFS, but replace it
> with a webserver and/or sshd.
I don't think that's a fair statement. Qmail is a great alternative to sendmail even
> > Also, I'll note here that I don't yet have need for a cluster, and have
> never implemented/used a vpopmail+NFS cluster. Therefore, I
> > realize that vpopmail+NFS may very well be an excellent solution, and that I
> may just have an incorrect idea in my head regarding
> > the speed and overhead that is required to run NFS.
> There have been *many* improvements to NFS. The latest is very feature
> rich, has hooks for security, etc. NFS is a good thing, especially
> if you start looking at the alternatives (i.e. NetBIOS).
OK. Again, I admit lack of experience here. But, it still seems like a vpopmail
specific protocol would be faster than transfering
and modifying files over NFS. Does everyone really think that NFS would be faster?
Thanks for the reply.
> Galaxy Networks, Inc.