Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: October 2001:
[aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP serv

[aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP serv

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP server)
From: Carl D Cravens <raven@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:22:22 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Jonathan Hall wrote:

> And the only real reason I'm considering swiching now is b/c I can't find
> any POP3 and IMAP servers that like to cooperate with sendmail *and* virtual
> domains.

I take it that a "real" virtual domain unlinks the system userid and the
mailbox userid, so you can have duplicate POP userid's across multiple

Up to this point, I never thought of POP having to "cooperate" with
SMTP... they're two differen't protocols and the only agreement they have
is that they both have to use the same mailbox format.  But if you want to
separate the POP userid from the /etc/passwd userid (or equivilent on
another platform), you have to get the SMTP server and the POP server to
agree on a way to handle the userid and domain.

So I think I see the issue... sendmail doesn't do "real" virtual domains.
Does seem like a bit of a shortcoming in that area.

(I don't have a need for it...  I only have three mail-receiving users,
only two of them use POP, and everything else is mailing lists and the
like.  And the "stick with what you know" combined with no perceived
flaws in sendmail keeps me from considering anything else.)

Carl D Cravens (raven@xxxxxxxxxxx)
The modems canno' stand the strain, captain!

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]