On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 02:28, Frank Cusack <fr...@cusack.net> wrote: > On 6/30/10 6:11 PM -0400 Charles Marcus wrote: >> >> That's just plain silly. Virtual users are extremely simple to setup, no >> need for MySQL unless you have a bunch. > > I agree. I am always in favor of virtual users, it just gives you a lot > more flexibility. I find system users MORE complicated to setup, actually. > You have to worry about system security in addition to IMAP stuff. You > always have to refactor things down the road and starting off with system > users just makes it more unpleasant.
I find a system-user scheme more complicated only when there is not a one-to-one relationship between the system user base and the usernames in one domain. I tend to use a non-system-user scheme more, now, because of things like having different sets of users in different domains, where, if not now, possibly in the future, a LHS will conflict with a system user, meaning I have to map the relationships. In cases where there is one domain and LHS will be the same as the system user forever (about 3 to 5 years in internet time), I'll use system users (with role accounts either forwarded or as real system users, depending on need). Otherwise, the multi-domain, multi-user-set, all stored under one system user, scheme (that I don't like to call virtual because there is nothing virtual about it once you avoid thinking in terms of system users) works quite well. A hybrid, where one or more domains are designated for system users, could still coexist with the multi-domain scheme.
