This is a great additional feature, and good 
thinking!  I will say that if all you are 
going to do is IP based virtual hosting 
then the server as it stands now is 
sufficient to the task.  

With the addition of being able to specify 
the config file on the command line you can 
get separate authentication domains and
separate mail stores via the separate 
configuration files.  

However, I personally prefer the single server
approach rather than running multiple servers.
I'm we should even implement this first as it 
could be used as a stepping stone to the next 
phase of email parsed realm info.  It also doesn't 
seem like it would be to intrusive, and could 
be an easily accepted patch.  Since we can also
implement it as a config file switch like 
use_ip_as_realm: true
only those people who were interested in the new 
behavior would have to use it.

-- Michael --

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Nemanich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: How to add virtual domain support


> Michael Fair wrote:
> > Yes, the Cyrus server supports realms though it is largely
> > unused.  Currently SASL just fills the realm info in with
> > the hostname of the machine.  You can see this when you do
> > "sasldblistusers".
> > 
> > In regards to all clients supportnig SASL.  Perhaps it's only
> > a matter of time, but will they implement it according to the
> > standards (specifically Microsoft).
> > 
> I have a suggestion on this subject. What about the possibility of
> binding a realm to a local address for cyrus (IP based vhost)? Yes,
> authentication and named vhosts via username and realm is ideal, but
> given that that information is usually not explicitly send by the
> client, if the imap server could assign the realm based on some implicit
> information such as the IP address, then there is an answer that should
> work while we all wait for more widespread support of SASL realms. If
> there was a patch to do this, would it be accepted into CVS?
> --
> Todd Nemanich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
 

Reply via email to