Hi Tom Your assumptions all sound correct to me
Michael. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: [vchkpw] Further Tweaks for better master/slave replication > In my never ending quest to achieve a truly redundant mail cluster, I > have been trying to remove the suprious database functions that aren't > needed in our installation. > > I have finally put into production our latest changes to remove the need > for the vlog table (--enable-mysql-logging=n) as well as the lastauth > table (--enable-auth-logging=n). > > I still have some updates that are hitting the master server that I > don't think are necessary: > > replace into lastauth set user="username", domain="domain.com", > remote_ip="webmail", timestamp=1071177181 > > And > > replace into relay ( ip_addr, timestamp ) values ( "192.168.1.100", > 1071177219 ) > > I think I have an idea as to where these can be isolated, but wanted to > ask the list and see what anybody had to say on the matter... > > The lastauth is obviously coming from sqwebmail (our webmail client). Do > I have to recompile sqwebmail against the updated libvpopmail.a (the one > that no longer has the lastauth code in it) to get it to stop updating > the lastauth table? Or is there something else perhaps a config option > in the sqwebmail itself? Or even worse hack the sqwebmail code to remove > the lastauth call? It seems to reason that sqwebmail would only use > lastauth in the database if it knew it was there so I think there is > something to do with the libvpopmail.a rather than anything else. > > The relay I believe would be sorted if I removed the vpopmail configure > option of --enable-roaming-users=y, but I want to make sure before I go > ahead and do that. We already use a patched qmail-smtpd to allow > smtpd-auth, so roaming users (with regard to vpopmail is redundant). > Unless it is also needed for things like updates to the tcp.smtp.cdb > database... Just looking for some clarification on that directive and > what it will effect by setting it to no. > > Thanks in advance. > > Tom Walsh > Network Administrator > http://www.ala.net/ > > > >
