Timo Sirainen wrote:
Having a consistent name prefix for all the processes sounds nice - but then you'd stick out as the exception to typical multi-process server names (like Postfix's master, smtpd, cleanup, etc.). Is it a Good Thing to deviate from accepted (poor) practices? Hmm....deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {} section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good unifying name?a) deliver binary, protocol deliver {} b) lda binary, protocol lda {} c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {} d) mda binary, protocol mda {} e) dovecot-mda binary, protocol mda {} f) something else? In any case protocol lda {} would work for a while longer for backwards compatibility. c) and e) choices also makes me think if e.g. imap and imap-login should be called dovecot-imap and dovecot-imap-login instead. People have had trouble finding them since ps|grep dovecot doesn't find them..
Other tradeoffs...more space consumed in logfiles. More screen width consumed during listings. Not necessarily a Good Thing - not necessarily a Bad Thing. But something to ponder on.
I would also consider the Dovecot architecture. As I (mis)understand it, the "dovecot" process spawns the necessary imap, pop3, and login daemons. So having a "dovecot.conf" file for controlling these is quite appropriate. However, unless I've missed something (quite likely) - "deliver" has nothing to do with the listening daemons. So having the "lda" configuration in the dovecot.conf file might be inappropriate - I would suggest splitting that off to a "dovecot-lda.conf" file (or whatever you change the delivery agent name to).
I like option c. -- Daniel
