On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Timo Sirainen <t...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 9.11.2010, at 22.14, Mark Moseley wrote:
>
>> service imap {
>> service_count = 0
>> }
>>
>> Is that safe to do in imap and/or pop3? Or at least no more insecure
>> than using service_count=0 for imap-login and pop3-login?
>
> Yep.
>Would the risks involved be identical to your warnings about using "service_count=0" with pop3-login/imap-login, namely that if the daemon gets hacked, it'd be able to access other mailboxes (presumably that the imap/pop3 already had open)? Nice, it does indeed seem to burn a lot less CPU. I've also set "process_min_avail=#" for 'service pop3' which appears to spread out incoming POP3 connections over all # pop3 procs. Any gotchas there? I've always got at least several hundred POP3 connections on a box, so having them not all hitting one proc is desirable. And having, say, 100 pop3 procs hanging around, possibly idle, is fine. This is pretty exciting stuff. Anybody running this way in production on a large scale, i.e. using "service_count=0" in a "service imap" or "service pop3" ?
