Re: [Dovecot] SUMMARY: LDA vs LMTP, Cyrus SASL, verbose_proctitle

2011-04-12 Thread Joseph Tam
Timo Sirainen wrote: On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 18:19 -0700, Joseph Tam wrote: > Also, one significant advantage not mentioned for LMTP was that one > delivery failure to multiple recipients can be disambiguated; LDA can only > return an exit code to be tested by the MTA, but the MTA cannot know >

Re: [Dovecot] SUMMARY: LDA vs LMTP, Cyrus SASL, verbose_proctitle

2011-04-12 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 18:19 -0700, Joseph Tam wrote: > Also, one significant advantage not mentioned for LMTP was that one > delivery failure to multiple recipients can be disambiguated; LDA can only > return an exit code to be tested by the MTA, but the MTA cannot know > which recipient(s) genera

Re: [Dovecot] SUMMARY: LDA vs LMTP, Cyrus SASL, verbose_proctitle

2011-04-12 Thread Charles Marcus
On 2011-04-11 9:19 PM, Joseph Tam wrote: > This problem present can itself, for example, when one user has a > full mailbox. An LDA will return EX_TEMPFAIL, and the message will be > requeued, and delivery will be retried for all recipients (even those > that were successfully delivered to). I'm

[Dovecot] SUMMARY: LDA vs LMTP, Cyrus SASL, verbose_proctitle

2011-04-11 Thread Joseph Tam
A summary of answers I got to the questiosn I posed. Is there a reason I should prefer LMTP over LDA for local delivery? Thanks for the responses I received. The benefits reported were more/better information logging, and service isolation. Also, one significant advantage not mentioned for