On 29/6/03 20:45 "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> James, then, is addressing concerns different from mine: you're playing
>> the Notes/iPlanet/Exchange game, a sector of the market I don't care about.
>
> I would not put Notes and James in the same category. James and Exchange
> maybe, in the sense of James wanting to offer an IMAP service, which would
> support IMAP-based groupware. In many respects, James and qmail seem more
> similar: they are built from modular services, a pipeline and message
> stores. Other than feature differences (James lacks ezmlm's functionality
> right now), the significant difference is that currently James has its
> analogues to qmail, ezmlm and qmail-pop3d all in one JVM. That is the only
> similarity to Notes that I see, and it is superficial, in my view.
It's not a matter of functionality, it's a matter of architecture.
All that you name (ezmlm, imap, pop3d) are things external to Qmail, they
don't touch the core distribution, you can strip them out and Qmail will
work... All Qmail can be summed up in the following:
- qmail-queue/clean (the queue)
- qmail-lspawn/local (delivery agent, local)
- qmail-rspawn/remote (delivery agent, remote via SMTP)
- qmail-inject (injector, local)
- qmail-smtpd (injector, remote via SMTP)
And with this I'm already including a number of things not "required" to run
qmail, just usual stuff you see in the distribution and you're going to use.
And note that those 8 binaries are completely independent in regard to their
application space and security model.
Qmail is _designed_ to be a set of different little tools running in
different processes with different users, relying on the OS for security,
Notes/Exchange/iPlanet follow another model... In my dialect "FASO TOTO ME",
meaning, "I take care of the whole kit and kaboodle"...
James does that, it's design is absolutely orthogonal to Qmail and Postfix.
Ok, it's "customizable" like Qmail (you can create pipelines more or less
like you do w/ Qmail) but it ain't the same thing architecturally.
>> Turns out that our bandwidth is saturated by Sobig/E messages,
>> our front-exchanger sendmails and qmails have no whatsoever
>> problem in handling that ...
>
> What allows them to keep up? Are they fast enough to rejecting messages in
> real-time, or is it simply a much better pipeline, with rejection happening
> on the backend(s) independent of the frontend?
>
> Notes wasn't designed to be a high throughput MTA. A lot of newer Notes
> features (we were using Notes 4.x and 5, if I recall correctly), always felt
> like misplaced hacks bolted onto the core. I'm amazed that Notes still
> holds up as well as it does. It ought to have been ditched in the original
> Domino timeframe, re-architected from the ground up, and built using a real
> database, real MTA, real web server, etc., in a modular fashion. Which is
> why I would not want to add Notes features to James. In my view, it would
> be better to facilitate integration between James, web app servers, and
> other applications; and let James do what it does best.
On one thing we agree... Notes is a piece of crap... Let's stop talking
about it because it gets on my nerves big times...
Pier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
