great,
I was already planning on asking how to get qmail-ldap and ezmlm working
together :)
Now for the big one: what's the performance impact of this patch?
And Turbo, have you any idea of the performance impact of your
ldap-control patch? I would like to use it, but I'm a bit afraid: for
each mail comming in via smtp, the number of ldap connections goes times
two:
- one for reading the control files
- a second one for the mailaddress lookup
and then again for the local delivery:
- one for qmail-lspawn for reading control files (is this done for each
mail?)
- one for the delivery
And if I have about thousand entries in rcpthosts and 2000 in locals, it
takes quite some time for ldap to return them and for qmail to handle
them, not?
Does anybody have any performance data on this?
Greets,
Franky
Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> >>>>> "Jose" == Jose Celestino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jose> No, the problem with ezmlm resides in ldap that does the
> Jose> match exactly as is ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and that way
> Jose> it prevents administrative and other requests
> Jose> ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Jose> from being passed to the "underlaying" .qmail-* files.
>
> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap/#qmail-ldap and ezmlm
>
> --
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> System administrator, developer
> Author of the QmailLDAP/Controls patch.
>
> KGB domestic disruption ammunition 767 cryptographic spy AK-47
> security jihad [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] Ortega
> NORAD Nazi quiche PLO
> [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]
