You're right. I don't care for NFS. That's why I suggested this. Thanks,
-- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net We are actively looking for companies that do a lot of long distance faxing and want to cut their long distance bill by up to 50%. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Clements" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "vpopmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jesse Guardiani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "vpopmail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 10:03 AM > Subject: [vchkpw] vpopmail as a daemon > > > > Greetings list, > > > > I'm sure people have considered this before, but I'd like to collect > everyone's thoughts on the idea I'm about to present: > > > > VPopMail as a daemon > > -------------------- > > What does everyone think about the possibility of turning vpopmail into a > daemon? Complete with network ports and the like. It would > > allow for a much more distributed architecture, IMHO. > > > > Currently, if someone wants to run qmailadmin on a separate web server, > they have to create an NFS share, right? > > What's wrong with that? > > > Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to provide a vpopmail network protocol > that allows connections from remote administrative utilities? > > You mean something that takes requests over the network and stores user > information in a database? > > > Possibly even implement support for vpopmail clusters (although I'm > thinking you'd have to have a crazy amount of users to need a > > cluster! Vpopmail is pretty darn efficient.) > > I've already got a cluster. It works great. > > > Programs like sqwebmail would benefit by not having to be recompiled every > time vpopmail is upgraded. The port protocol wouldn't > > change much between versions, and developers could maintain backward > compatibility. > > The only time you need to recompile sqwebmail is if the storage format for > the users change. At this point, you'd also need to recompile the software > that talks over the network. Either way you lose. > > > Sqwebmail WOULDN'T be able to run on a separate server, as it accesses > maildirs directly, but at least administration, upgrades, and > > general package stability would likely improve a bit. > > My sqwebmail install is distributed across machines. Works great. > > The general idea is "less code is going to have less bugs", not "more code > is going to have less bugs". > > > Who knows. One might even be able to implement a maildir access protocol. > But that would probably just duplicate the functionality > > of the IMAP protocol. > > Now that would just be silly. > > > Can anyone else think of a good reason why vpopmail might benefit from > being made into a daemon? > > Only if you were for some reason religiously opposed to using NFS to > accomplish all the things above. Then again, you could use samba or afs. So > no, I can't think of a good reason. > > > Can anyone think of a really good reason why it shouldn't? (Other than the > time it would take to code everything.) > > It's too complicated for something that's already small, fast, and simple. > None of the things you suggest can't already be done, or don't really need > to be done. > > --Doug > > >
