Phil Howard wrote:
That would result in doubling the bandwidth on the inside server connection
since it would be dealing with the mail first coming in to the MX, then
being replicated back out to the other server. By delivering outside mail
to the outside server first, the only bandwidth usage
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 09:58:30AM -0500, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
| Phil Howard wrote:
|
| That would result in doubling the bandwidth on the inside server connection
| since it would be dealing with the mail first coming in to the MX, then
| being replicated back out to the other server. By
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:31:13AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| Of course replicating some things such as seen state will be quite
| painful, and you may need to do some hacks to keep uids unique between
| the machines.
How does Cyrus manage
Patrick Welche wrote:
All this sounds remarkably similar to the postgres-r database replication
problem cf nice paper by Bettina Kemme
http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~kemme/papers/vldb00.html
Here it would be client connects to imap server A and says APPEND. Server A
then sends APPEND to server A and
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:49:21AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| Well, for one, this requires change to Cyrus, which Phil doesn't seem to
| want to do.
As long as the change is simple, I would not mind doing so. Making the UID
so UID % NumberOfServers == ServerID holds true should be easy and
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:41:12AM +0900, Mark Keasling wrote:
| It sounds like you may need to design a distributed mailstore that will
| satisfy both your requirements and those of IMAP and then implement a
| server around that mailstore.
That was my original plan to do on top of Maildir. But
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:35:34PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
| you stated that you want to have the outside box act as a secondary MX for
| the inside one, if you do this and accept the extra bandwidth used then
| you could still do this and have the mail only delivered to the inside box
| and
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:16:36AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| Does the RFC say that the IMAP UIDs have to be the file name?
|
| No, of course not.
|
| Do the IMAP UIDs have to be the same between different sessions?
|
| They cannot change
Rob Siemborski wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| Doing replicated IMAP stores (espeically geographicly distanct ones) is
| not an easy problem.
It's easy if every message is a separate file.
This is not true. It has nothing to do with the implementation of the
mailstore.
I've
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:19:27AM +, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
| Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| | Doing replicated IMAP stores (espeically geographicly distanct ones) is
| | not an easy problem.
|
| It's easy if every message is a separate file.
|
| This is
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 07:20:57PM +0900, Mark Keasling wrote:
| Hi,
|
| On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:19:12 -0600, Phil Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
| On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:16:36AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
|
| | On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| |
| | Does the RFC say that
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
I wonder how well that method of replication works when both nodes
cannot reach each other, and both are doing updates. And I wonder
They don't. If they cannot reach each other, at most one of them must allow
updates.
--
One disk to rule them all,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
I wonder how well that method of replication works when both nodes
cannot reach each other, and both are doing updates. And I wonder
They don't. If they cannot reach each other, at most one of them must allow
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:51:21AM -0500, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
|
| On Tue, 04 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
|
| I wonder how well that method of replication works when both nodes
| cannot reach each other, and both are doing updates. And I wonder
|
I've been sorta following this thread, and I don't claim to know a whole
lot about programming, but I'm wondering why something simple like what
I'm about to suggest wouldn't work... Here goes:
If a group of servers are gonna be in constant communication, why not just
have each server assign
However, had message IDs been the RFC822 message ID, then it would have
been possible to receive new mail on each node. Since the IDs would not
collide, that would be OK. If you did get the same ID delivered to both
somehow, it should be the same mail. If not, it violates the RFC, so
then
Hi,
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 05:57:53 -0600, Phil Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
One thing I was thinking of would be a hack to make one server always use
only odd UIDs, and the other always use only even UIDs, and to do catchups
while they are reachable with each other. But this is getting into
of the
limitation more then the generic database two-way-sync problem
David Lang
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 03:19:12 -0600
From: Phil Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rob Siemborski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: looking for Cyrus mail format
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 09:18:47AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| Apparently the way Cyrus does it, there are problems. But that does
| not mean it cannot be done in general. By keeping a sequential number
| and naming the files by that number
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
Does the RFC say that the IMAP UIDs have to be the file name?
No, of course not.
Do the IMAP UIDs have to be the same between different sessions?
They cannot change without also chanigng the UIDVALIDITY of the mailbox,
which is an expensive operation
On Sat, 01 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| Doing replicated IMAP stores (espeically geographicly distanct ones) is
| not an easy problem.
It's easy if every message is a separate file.
Unless the UIDs are UUIDs, it is NOT simple. And Cyrus does not use a UUID
for every message, but rather an
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
So this new message was be appended to the same FILE? That sounds
more like the old UNIX mailbox format.
No. Same mailbox.
Two servers are in sync, both with a UIDNEXT of 1000 for a particular
mailbox. They suffer a netsplit and both have an APPEND
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:20:03PM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| So this new message was be appended to the same FILE? That sounds
| more like the old UNIX mailbox format.
|
| No. Same mailbox.
|
| Two servers are in sync, both with a UIDNEXT of
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
| Of course replicating some things such as seen state will be quite
| painful, and you may need to do some hacks to keep uids unique between
| the machines.
How does Cyrus manage uids? I hope these are not uids in /etc/passwd.
No, they're the unique
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:31:13AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| | Of course replicating some things such as seen state will be quite
| | painful, and you may need to do some hacks to keep uids unique between
| | the machines.
|
| How does Cyrus
A couple people have suggested to me that I use Cyrus-IMAP as
opposed to Courier-IMAP, and have given some good arguments
for that decision direction. However, I have still have one
show stopper for that switch: some external programs that work
directly with the storage space of all the mail.
Hello,
One of the disadvantage of using Cyrus might be that there is
no API to the mail store other than the IMAP protocol. You simply
cannot go mucking around the mail store with external programs
without the potential to cause problems.
That said, mail is stored in directories that map unto
A couple people have suggested to me that I use Cyrus-IMAP as
opposed to Courier-IMAP, and have given some good arguments
for that decision direction. However, I have still have one
show stopper for that switch: some external programs that work
directly with the storage space of all the mail.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Earl R Shannon wrote:
Cyrus documentation calls the IMAP server a black box. This is defined
to mean that the users do not have access to the account/data accept
through the well defined ( :-/ ) IMAP protocol. This black box concept
also extends to a certain extent to the
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
SASL documentation?! There is some floating about. I love SASL, but
the shreds of documentation are universally terrible.
If you have specific suggestions as to what needs to be added, please let
us know. If you actually have text, that'd be
Adam Tauno Williams said:
SASL documentation?! There is some floating about. I love SASL, but
the shreds of documentation are universally terrible.
AFAIK, this is also true for much of the software that CMU produces,
however the quality of the software has been so good that no one seems to
Hello,
You are correct on all counts. I was simply trying to make a point,
and IMAP is the major protocol used to access the mail store, at
least it is here. Nor did I mean to imply that any server that one
set's up to see how things worked should be a production machine.
In fact, because one
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Earl R Shannon wrote:
But that does now beg the question. There must be some form of
coordination between the various processes as they access the
mail store. Can this not be abstracted out and put in an API to
make it easier for people to write their own applications? I
Earl R Shannon wrote:
But that does now beg the question. There must be some form of
coordination between the various processes as they access the
mail store. Can this not be abstracted out and put in an API to
make it easier for people to write their own applications? I would
venture a guess
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
The point is if you expose the internal API for accessing the mailstore
you are stuck with it and can't make changes. I can't imagine there is
a big need for this or other people wanting to write code to implement
that API, so if you really want
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:57:50AM -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
| It does not use maildir. It actually can use several storage backends, flat
| file to sleepcat and some others. Rumor of an SQL backend, that might be what
| your looking for.
SQL would be harder to do for what I'm doing.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0500, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
| Earl R Shannon wrote:
|
| But that does now beg the question. There must be some form of
| coordination between the various processes as they access the
| mail store. Can this not be abstracted out and put in an API to
|
Phil Howard wrote:
One of the needs I have is to build a two-way mail store replica. Either
node may be delivered to, and either node may be accessed by the user but
only one at a time. The two nodes are topologically and geographically
far apart, and bandwidth between them is to be considered
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:33:41PM -0500, John A. Tamplin wrote:
| Phil Howard wrote:
|
| One of the needs I have is to build a two-way mail store replica. Either
| node may be delivered to, and either node may be accessed by the user but
| only one at a time. The two nodes are topologically
39 matches
Mail list logo
