On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:53:25 +0200, Paul J Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.0 is frozen solid. Bugfixes only (so unless you want to file a bug against
the dbmail_ prefix...). And about
time we ship that product. I don't see anything major at the moment holding
up 2.0.0-final.
Yep. No more
Ilja Booij wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:53:25 +0200, Paul J Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leif, I see your point, but I feel that migration from 1.2 to 2.0 will be and
remain non-trivial for all
users. In fact, so much so, that I feel that dbmail-smtp/imapd/pop3d actually
should refuse
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Leif Jackson wrote:
Hello,
please consider using one single process with threads, for each client
one thread, instead the slower 'fork a child for every client' or
Apache like pre-fork technique.
Our current 2.1 cvs head has pre-fork and I am currently working
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 04:45:38 -0400 (EDT), Leif Jackson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well going to bed now but I thought I would respond, the threading patch
has been completed for the pop server and halfway through making the imap
daemon thread safe... It is a major bunch of changes as well as
Ilja Booij wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:53:25 +0200, Paul J Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leif, I see your point, but I feel that migration from 1.2 to 2.0 will be and
remain non-trivial for all
users. In fact, so much so, that I feel that dbmail-smtp/imapd/pop3d actually
should refuse
Aaron Stone wrote:
Leif Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As for the threading code it makes about a
60% speedup on the pop3 server alone and I can't state much yet for the
imap server but between the pthreads and the new list code I have finaly
eradicated the last few minor memory leaks I
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
When was it decided that we are going multithreaded.
No decision yet, afaik. I'm guessing Aaron's just getting exited about the idea... We're all mostly just
awaiting the results from Leifs efforts, so we cn run our own performance checks. Seeing is believing,
