Hello Adam Please let me know if you or anybody else has success in making vpopmail+ldap 2.x work. If Vpopmail does not support OpenLDAP 2.x .I've no problem using the 1.x version.
Thanx Sumith Adam Nealis wrote: > Hi Gabriel, > > --- Gabriel Ambuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> Hello Adam, >> >> Saturday, September 29, 2001, 11:50:28 PM, you wrote: >> >>> For what I'm trying to do I do need virtual domains and >>> accounts. I already use qmail + vpopmail in this way, but I'd >>> like to use LDAP as the back end database for user management, >>> virtual domains management, etc. >> >>> Is this possible without writing new code at present? >> >> I don't think so. MySQL is in place, though. > > Ah well... > >> I know it is off topic, but I'd really be interested what advantages >> you (and anyone else) see in running LDAP for email accounts (and the >> rest of the vhosting stuff, for that matter) compared to saving the >> stuff in a simple SQL setup. To me, SQL appears to be much easier to >> setup and maintain, especially as most vhost setups got MySQL up and >> running anyhow, but OpenLDAP is a beast that won't do what you want >> without some good amount of work... Comments? > > I think that OpenLDAP 1.x suffers from not insisting on data schemas > (it runs with schema checking off by default!). Not only that I am > having trouble getting OpenLDAP to log to syslog 8(. > > This makes it easy to build useless directories. OpenLDAP 2.x (LDAPv3) > directories must have schemas. This enforces structure as you cannot > put data in ad hoc. > > IMO a relational database is not best suited for what is essentially > just an address book. A directory is better suited. LDAP is optimised > for reads, since the operations in a directory are mainly read. The > nature of the data are not particularly relational either (witness the > simplicity of the RDB schema in the SQL-based tools). > > LDAP has built-in replication clustering, something that can be taken > advantage of with in qmail-ldap. > > The memory footprint of slapd 1.12.11 is <1MB on my FreeBSD box, while > mysqld weighs in at 25MB. > > I am not criticising RDBs by the way. But IMO they are best suited to > dealing with relational data. I do like the tool (I forget it's name), > that stores e-mail in a database. This seems to be a space efficient > manner to store e-mail that is cc:d to an entire organisation, since > only one copy of each e-mail need be stored. I wouldn't advocate > storing actual e-mail data in an LDAP store! However, I would be > reluctant to run my mail queue from a RDB. > Having said all that, I have not investigated the loading > characteristics of OpenLDAP 1 or 2. A poster to the qmail-ldap list > warned me off OpenLDAP 2, for example, because of instability under > load. > > I was hoping to run everything under LDAP because I did not want to > run (and have to maintain) LDAP + some flavour of sqld. And the data > I am dealing with (user details, aliases, virtual domains and members, > etc.) are best suited to a directory. > > I have some more thinking to do! > > Adam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk > or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie > > >
