On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:41:55PM -0400, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:16:18PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > Then we are back on 1 IP per virtual domain. In our case this would mean we
> > need some hundred IPs on the mail machines while they typically have only 2
> > - 5. Remember that it is not too common to have webhosting and mail services
> > on the same machine (for very good reasons).
>
> This might be a problem for your particular set-up, but I don't see it
> as a big problem for us because we're so small. I can't think of any
> other way to do true virtual hosting without IP aliases. This is how
> it's done with web servers for example.
No, this is not true. Name Based Virtual Hosting just looks at the Host:
field in the http header. You can run thousands or millions of virtual http
servers on one IP due to this field specified in HTTP 1.1. Unfortunately
the server name (the user has typed in) does not appear anywhere in the pop
dialogue, so this is not possible for pop.
> My problem with username-domain or username@domain for the POP3
> authentication, is our clients might want just username for POP3
> authentication.
> Furthermore, they could
> request an appropriate hostname for them like pop3.clientname.dom
> instead of a more general pop3.bighosting.dom (which could resolve to
> pop3.bighosting.dom, but still).
come on, this is hardly a real issue. Have a quick look at this:
#telnet pop3.bsws.de pop3
Trying 213.128.133.139...
Connected to pop3.bsws.de.
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I havent send a single command to the server yet, but it annouces his name
happily. One more point to change. Server names are not really an issue. If
people want that thay should pay for a dedicated box.
> Also username-domain or
> username@domain doesn't look like what people are used to (which is a
> political issue), and my boss might not like it :(.
Nearly every hosting company and very very much ISPs I'm aware of are
working with domaiin.tld-user or just customer numbers. This local-part-only
may be common for inhouse servers.
After all, people weren't used to use eMail at all a few years ago.
> > hmm, i don't really get your point. Currently there is only _1_ attribute
> > for authentication: uid.
> Right, but it would be better if it was just one attribute for both,
> like the 'mail' attribute currently is for the SMTP.
using the local part only is just confusing. The current implementation is
clean and easy: mail addresses in mail: and mailalternateaddress:
attributes, login name in uid:. using a part of another attribute as uid is
confusing and will cause significantly more traffic on this list. just think
about all the guys not checking the non-need of virtual domains in qmail-ldap.
On the other hand using the _complete_ mail address as login name (optional
of course! logging in via uid must be possible, too) makes sense for webmail
interfaces. As I'm hacking squirrel right now anyway maybe I'll add this. I
still like sqwebmail more, but the missing cluster support and the
complicated addition of own tools (autoresponder, forwarders, ...) makes
squirrel more and more attractive...
Greetings
Henning
--
* Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de *
* Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany *
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)
