3 Jan 2006 03:39
Re: Thank You for qpsmtpd ... and a deployment note....
Andrew W. Donoho <awd <at> DDG.com>
2006-01-03 02:39:15 GMT
2006-01-03 02:39:15 GMT
On Jan 2, 2006, at 19:33, Gordon Rowell wrote: > Andrew W. Donoho wrote: > > [...] >> On an FC4 system, there is always tension between the one, >> true RPM path and getting things done. In my case, because I had >> already made the commitment to djb's dnscache, utilizing your >> standard execution model via daemon tools was a key parameter in >> choosing your team's code over other proxy options. (I also >> appreciate that qpsmtpd can do much more than just proxy SMTP but >> a proxy was what I needed just now. I'm sure I'll find other good >> uses for your fine collection of plugins over time.) > > You might like to the look at the SME Server distro (based on > CentOS 4.2), which includes this support "out of the box". We use > qpsmtpd and dnscache and have all of the software built as RPMs. > > http://mirror.contribs.org/pub/smeserver/releases/7/ > > Source RPMs can be found here: > > http://mirror.contribs.org/pub/smeserver/releases/7/builds/rpms/SRPMS/ > >> During my debugging process, I did find a repackaged qpsmtpd >> as an RPM, <http://www.mail-archive.com/qpsmtpd <at> perl.org/ >> msg03912.html>. While this looked like what I needed, when I >> extracted the RPM file and diffed many of the source files, I >> found many changes. > > [...] > > For the record, Peter's RPMs are considered to be the authoritative > RPMs for qpsmtpd. We are using them in the SME Server. Gordon, Thank you for the added information. I will keep it in mind for future iterations of my SOHO server. I am glad to know that Peter's RPMs are the authoritative releases. In no way was I trying to cast aspersions on Peter's work. I was just referring to the many changes in his package compared to the code I acquired from Develooper. When one is a noob to a "new to me" system, as I am, it pays to be cautious about which code base one starts using. I have found that it frequently pays off to stay close to the original developer's expected operating environment. Also, I guess I am used to the stability of djb-derived systems and low versioning frequency. I have had mixed success upgrading RH6 -> FC4. Over the years, I have had to resort to a complete reinstallation of the OS because there was a consistency in the RPM database. (I am sure this was due to operator error but I am, nonetheless, cautious about introducing new RPMs to my server. Of course, part of the fun of running a SOHO server is finding your own mistakes.) I think it is a testament to collective quality of your code that I was able to get it to work without having to ask for help on this list. BTW, thanks for the informative comments. It is nice to find a group this welcoming to a stranger popping up in your midst. Happy New Year, Andrew ____________________________________ Andrew W. Donoho awd <at> DDG.com, PGP Key ID: 0x81D0F250 +1 (512) 453-6652 (o), +1 (512) 750-7596 (m) "To take no detours from the high road of reason and social responsibility." -- Marcus Aurelius