Mailing List Archive

Scott Schwartz wrote:
>
> If people are seriously advocating running two copies of qmail, then I
> want all the virtualdomain stuff deleted, since running N copies would
> do the job there too.

I don't think running n copies of qmail is a long-term solution. We're
just looking for a solution to a very specific problem, until a patch to
fix that problem is released.

Evan

Scott Schwartz <schwartz@cse.psu.edu> writes:
>Greg Andrews <gerg@wco.com> writes:
>| My site supports around a thousand virtual domains. Are you really
>| suggesting I run a thousand copies of qmail to handle them?
>|
>| Or are you trying to say the idea of running a second copy of qmail
>| is a silly one, by carrying it to a silly extreme?
>
>Well, both really. I feel like qmail is inconsistent in providing
>support for virtual domains, but e.g. not multiple queueing policies.
>Why not run $n$ copies of qmail? It's supposed to be lean and
>efficient, and with suitable engineering that should be a workable
>approach, but I don't think it has in fact been engineered in a way
>that will make that feasable, even for $n=2$.
>

Perhaps, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that because
I suggest a workaround for a specific problem I'm trying to assert
that no further mods to qmail are needed to solve the problem.

-Greg
--
Greg Andrews West Coast Online
Unix System Administrator 5800 Redwood Drive
gerg@wco.com Rohnert Park CA 94928
(yes, 'greg' backwards) 1-800-WCO-INTERNET

Greg Andrews <gerg@wco.com> writes:
| Perhaps, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that because
| I suggest a workaround for a specific problem I'm trying to assert
| that no further mods to qmail are needed to solve the problem.

Of course. I didn't mean to imply that.

Scott Schwartz:
> If people are seriously advocating running two copies of qmail, then I
> want all the virtualdomain stuff deleted, since running N copies would
> do the job there too.

Won't work. Virtual domains is for incoming mail, multiple copies of
qmail is only good for outgoing mail (unless you also get into
multiple ip addresses and running each qmail on different address).

I expect you're right if you meant to say that multiple queues without
multiple binaries would be more elegant than this approach.

However, also note that qmail has been released as version 1.0 --
while Dan may release another version, I don't expect the current
traffic would be very encouraging in making that happen. Most of the
change requests I've seen have been very strident and demanding.

It's true that a feature wish list would be a good thing to have when
constructing a new version. But when there's such a volume of traffic
that's aimed at points which are already addressed in the current
documentation (e.g. in files [A-Z]* and *.[1-8]), I know I'd be
somewhat less than encouraged. Of course, Dan is probably more
resilient than I, but still...

What makes you think Dan wants to dredge through a whole bunch of
demanding drivel looking for a few pearls of wisdom? I mean, not that
he has any alternative, but couldn't this mailing list be a bit more
constructive?

--
Raul