Re: OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER (Was: Cyrus SASL 2.1.10 Released)

[Hack Kampbjørn]

On Tuesday 10 December 2002 15:16, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Oops!
>
> I pulled the wrong SASL address out of my address book.  Please do not
> send any more replies to ietf-sasl.
>
> Ken
>
> Peter 'Luna' Runestig wrote:
> > Ken Murchison wrote:
> > > OK.  I now have two conflicting reports regarding testing for
> > > OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER with OpenSSL 0.9.7 (both quoted below).  Could
> > > somebody who has 0.9.7 installed please try to figure out what the deal
> > > is?  I tend to believe that I was originally correct in including the
> > > check,

I think i've tracked this now. The two first OpenSSL 0.9.7 betas  had removed 
the inclusion of all the other headers in  this was reverted 
for beta 3. But the OpenBSD folk didn't like it so they removed the inclusion 
again.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libssl/src/crypto/evp/evp.h

So we have that for OpenSSL versions < 0.9.7 the  also includes 
 as it does for betas >=3 (but not on OpenBSD). As otp.c 
wanted to use the openssl MD5 file and not the sasl's internal my previous 
patch was wrong. Just explicitly including  seems a better 
solution as that's what we want. Possibly including this file twice shouldn't 
break anything.


--- otp.c.orig  Mon Oct 14 21:39:43 2002
+++ otp.c   Tue Dec 10 16:31:36 2002
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
 #include 

 #include 
+#include 

 #include 
 #define MD5_H  /* suppress internal MD5 */

Re: Redundant mail storage

[Hack Kampbjørn]

Roland Pope wrote:
> 
> From: "Birger Toedtmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Second (esp. if you cannot afford the hardware described above) you may
> > set up the heartbeat package from www.linux-ha.org.  It is very easy to
> > create failover mechnisms with heartbeat, but there is still the problem
> > of data synchronisation (heartbeat does not deal with that).  I myself use
> > heartbeat together with rsync, which is surely unidirectional but can be
> > turned into somewhat "bidirectional" in combination with heartbeat:  The
> > "active" machine will permanently send its data to the backup machine
> > (simple as that: I use a cronjob that tests whether we are active or not).
> > Upon failfailover, the situation will reverse, which leaves data intact
> > and up-to-date.  However, note that rsync is slow, if you have lots of
> > data, you should definitely think over the first alternative.
> >
> Birger,
> 
> I am looking at implementing something like this at present. Would you be
> able to provide a summary of what you had to do, and maybe any scripts you
> had to build to get this to work?
> 
> Thanks
> Roland Pope

I'm planning an starting implementing a redundant mail system in 6
months (maybe a year) so it's still only in the ideas fase. One thing I
wanted to test was using coda as storage and let coda's replication take
care of the mail storage synchronization. If cyrus was one single
threaded application there could be problems with file lock and caches,
but since cyrus is a combination of several daemons that already are
aware that the files get updated externally -- it may just work 8-)

-- 
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards

Hack Kampbjørn