Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:09:06 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Email push and pull (was Re: matthew dillon) Message-ID: <3E4C9612.2777D62E@mindspring.com> References: <20030211032932.GA1253@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <a05200f2bba6e8fc03a0f@[10.0.1.2]> <3E498175.295FC389@mindspring.com> <a05200f38ba6f51f20eff@[10.0.1.2]> <3E49C434.D8D497EE@mindspring.com> <a05200f44ba6fe5dff1a0@[10.0.1.2]> <3E4A83BC.8A15E7C3@mindspring.com> <a05200f4fba70847460b3@[10.0.1.2]> <3E4B12F5.2608BBB@mindspring.com> <a05200f5cba7146e25655@[10.0.1.2]> <3E4BB64E.A9AEED28@mindspring.com> <a05200f06ba71eac7fe1c@[10.0.1.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brad Knowles wrote: > At 7:14 AM -0800 2003/02/13, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> Okay, what parts of the problem doesn't Perdition solve? > > > > Replication and failover. > > True. But is the POP3/IMAP4 proxy really the best place to try > to solve this problem? No... but does proxy really solve anything, then, more than a DNS rotor solves? All it really does is add a single point of failure. Unless you can target a subset of back end content servers, you might as well use DNS round-robin. Using a proxy implies the back end replica problem is *already* solved. > > The result is that you provide a unified view onto a backend farm, > > but you lack replication and failover in the back-end, and it does > > not magically appear, merely because you are running Perdition. > > Fair enough. But how does this relate to the domain problem? > That's all you had mentioned previously. A proxy server doesn't solve the domain problem; Perdition was *your* answer to the domain problem. 8-). > > There are other POP3 and IMAP4 proxies that can do the same things > > Perdition can: it's no big deal. > > I've done some research in this area. I'd be interested to know > which ones you're talking about. The Cyrus one seems OK. Personally, I'd never use a proxy for this, except to front-end the authentication. Even then, it's somewhat of a tossup as to whether it really has any utility, unless it's capable of targetting a subset of the back end (in other words, it has a priori knowledge of where the replica lives; maybe it does LDAP lookups to select a backend server to point the client to). At that point, you are better taking the LARD/CARD approach, and adding "referral" to the IMAP4 protocol, and just handling it at the server level as a peering relationship, so the reason you'd do it is to avoid modifying client programs. > > In fact, it doesn't deal with > > LDAP, which is probably where the routing to the back end store will > > occur. > > Do I really need to quote the relevant sections of > perdition/db/ldap/perdition.schema, dated Mar 27, 2002? Maybe I should say "doesn't deal with LDAP the way it should" instead? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E4C9612.2777D62E>