--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Adam Nealis wrote: > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'm unsure of what versions, etc. I developed the vpopmail LDAP > > > module. We've installed it on several systems without problems. > > > > If LDAP sucks, why didya write it then? ;) > > > > As with the majority of our software, someone paid for it's > development. 'Nuff said!
> > > Just be sure you arent trying to use qmail-ldap. qmail-ldap is > > > NOT the vpopmail LDAP module. ..and again, if for any reason > > > > So please confirm that I should be looking at: > > > > qmail + (vpopmail + LDAP module) + (cork sucking) LDAP + RTFM > > Yes. There shouldn't be any problems as long as you create > the schemas, and create the basedn, etc. Cool! Just what I wanted to hear. Adam. > > > > > Sorry to labour the point, but this qmail +/- LDAP +/- vpopmail > > etc. stuff is confusing to a newcomer like myself 8(. As I'm sure > > you'll appreciate, to be told "this combination should work" is > > more informative than trying to work out "will this combination > > work". Assuming no-one lies to me ;). > > > > > you think LDAP is better than any other database out there, > > > you are wrong :) LDAP has sucked, and always will. > > > > Well, thanks for the advice, but I'll reserve the right to make > > my own mistakes ;). Seriously I've had a soft spot for LDAP for > > a while and this is a chance for me to prove to myself that it > > does or does not suck. > > > > Cheers, > > Adam. > > > > > > > > Adam Nealis wrote: > > > > > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I've made it work. You need to use one of the later versions > > > > > of OpenLDAP. The earlier versions do not support some of the API > > > > > that the newer versions do. > > > > Interesting...! > > > > > > > > Can you list the verions of all the software components you > > > > used? Did you have to hack LDAP schemas, source code, etc.? > > > > > > > > Please confirm: you now have qmail-ldap + vpopmail + OpenLDAP 2.x > > > > running, and LDAP is used to manage (vpopmail) virtual domains and > > > > (vpopmail) users within these domains? Can you add, delete, edit > > > > accounts within the LDAP schema? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Adam Nealis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sumith Ail wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. > > > > > www.inter7.com - 847-492-0470 > > > > > Prices at http://www.inter7.com/prices > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. > > > www.inter7.com - 847-492-0470 > > > Prices at http://www.inter7.com/prices > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc. > www.inter7.com - 847-492-0470 > Prices at http://www.inter7.com/prices ____________________________________________________________ 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
