From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep  2 03:22:55 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7E416A4BF
	for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Sep 2003 03:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yazzy.wrs.no (mail.wrs.no [213.236.173.130])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33A643FBF
	for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Sep 2003 03:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd@yazzy.org)
Received: from h311r4iz3r.wrs (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by yazzy.wrs.no (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FBCE4388
	for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Tue,  2 Sep 2003 12:01:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:01:24 +0200
From: Martin Jessa <freebsd@yazzy.org>
To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Message-Id: <20030902120124.42c7171d.freebsd@yazzy.org>
Organization: ezUnix.org
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Stunnel - robust enough?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Services Providers <freebsd-isp.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp>,
	<mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-isp>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp>,
	<mailto:freebsd-isp-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:22:55 -0000


Hi.

I use stunnel today to tunnel IMAPS -> IMAP.
I have just a few users that connect to the tunnel.
It's been up for allmost a year with no problems so far.
I wonder how robust stunnel would be if it had to handle a couple hundred of concurrent connections.