[28990] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: pop server in an ISP environment
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Tue May 30 14:28:33 2000
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:26:23 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <petervd@vuurwerk.nl>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000530202623.A22762@vuurwerk.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.05.10005301120590.1680-100000@shakalaka>; from alex@nac.net on Tue, May 30, 2000 at 11:22:21AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 11:22:21AM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>
> > Indeed. For example, for the company I work for (that is burdened by the
> > 64k limit right now because of lot's of stock linux 2.0.x kernels), I am
> > developing a mail-solution that doesn't chew up UIDs for popboxes.
>
> Try the user-less qmail install, HOWTO at:
>
> http://www.tibus.net/pgregg/projects/qmail/single-uid-howto.html
>
> We're about to implement this.
I have looked at it but it does not fit my needs at all. The system I'm
developing (which _is_ based on qmail tho), has several advantages. Also, I
don't need 'user-less' stuff, because all customers already have a
hosting-account for FTP and shell.
The big advantage is that users own and control their own mailinglists,
popoboxes, forwards and all that and normally don't need _any_ intervention
from us to get anything done. This also allows for easy quota-enforcing and
accounting - all stuff from one customer is under 1 UID.
With that user-less stuff, AFAICS the admin needs to do work for each
popbox created. This ofcourse can be automated, but is still a centralized
process. We are moving towards decentralization as far as possible while
still keeping a grip.
Greetz, Peter.
--
petervd@vuurwerk.nl - Peter van Dijk [student:developer:madly in love]
