The modifications come into play with regards to the local delivery
process needing to query the SQL database for the homedir of the local
user. This program will not have any local file (passwd or other) to
check against. Personaly, I hate sendmail, but most of my peers love it,
and I am fighting an uphill battle to push this through. We have to be
able to scale to over 150,000 users in a little under 2 years time. I
was just wondering if anyone had some documented proof that qmail can
handle this kind of load (multihome system of course).
Thanks for your response.
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Champion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 7:23 AM
To: Jim Beam
Subject: Re: Help - I am fighting with old ideologies...
> As I have mentioned in several of my postings to this group, my
company
> is in the process of migrating over 48,000 users from NTMail (not
> netshoppers version, but a custom one they had designed). We are
looking
> at qMail and Sendmail. My preference is to go with qMail, but the vote
> is not totally mine. Can anyone give me some solid - documented
reasons
> why qMail would be a better solution for us? (We are looking at heavy
> modifications to either flavors, so that is not an issue - we are
using
> a portal product that is totally SQL driven, and all daemons will have
> to authenticate from it - also, we will be using a hashed dir
structure
> (5 layers deep) for the users Maildir(s)).
If it helps any, I don't see either as being "heavy modifications" with
respect to qmail. In fact, I don't even see where you'd need
modifications
because qmail innately supports the features you need. You'll just have
to
write your own checkpassword program for POP user authentication.
See http://www.tibus.net/pgregg/projects/qmail/single-uid-howto.txt for
one
idea on solving your problem.
Evan
