Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Dovecot LDA vs LMTP

Expand Messages
  • Reindl Harald
    ... LMTP because it does not permanently fire up new processes
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 23, 2012
      Am 23.12.2012 16:24, schrieb John Allen:
      > I am using Dovecot as my mail delivery mechanism for both local and virtual users, plus using it as my SASL auth agent.
      > My setup is for a small business (average 30 users).
      > The mail system is on a single server.
      > Which would be better unix/pipes and LDA or LMTP

      LMTP because it does not permanently fire up new processes
    • Wietse Venema
      ... A resident LMTP daemon uses fewer CPU cycles than a process that is created once for each delivery, but with 30 users the difference matters only if you
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 23, 2012
        John Allen:
        > I am using Dovecot as my mail delivery mechanism for both local and
        > virtual users, plus using it as my SASL auth agent.
        > My setup is for a small business (average 30 users).
        > The mail system is on a single server.
        > Which would be better unix/pipes and LDA or LMTP.

        A resident LMTP daemon uses fewer CPU cycles than a process that
        is created once for each delivery, but with 30 users the difference
        matters only if you have a 15-year old computer (i.e. the technology
        that was available when I started work on Postfix).

        Wietse
      • John Allen
        I am using Dovecot as my mail delivery mechanism for both local and virtual users, plus using it as my SASL auth agent. My setup is for a small business
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 23, 2012
          I am using Dovecot as my mail delivery mechanism for both local and virtual users, plus using it as my SASL auth agent.
          My setup is for a small business (average 30 users).
          The mail system is on a single server.
          Which would be better unix/pipes and LDA or LMTP.

          TIA
          JohnA

          --

          He who opens a school door, closes a prison - Victor Hugo

          Sent using Mozilla Thunderbird

        • John Allen
          ... My concern is more with reliability, does moving mail between stack components gain anything from either LDA or LMTP? -- He who opens a school door closes
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 28, 2012

            On 23/12/2012 9:05 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
            John Allen:
            
            I am using Dovecot as my mail delivery mechanism for both local and 
            virtual users, plus using it as my SASL auth agent.
            My setup is for a small business (average 30 users).
            The mail system is on a single server.
            Which would be better unix/pipes and LDA or LMTP.
            
            A resident LMTP daemon uses fewer CPU cycles than a process that
            is created once for each delivery, but with 30 users the difference
            matters only if you have a 15-year old computer (i.e. the technology
            that was available when I started work on Postfix).
            
            	Wietse
            
            My concern is more with reliability, does moving mail between stack components gain anything from either LDA or LMTP?
            --

            He who opens a school door closes a prison - Victor Hugo

            Sent using Mozilla Thunderbird



          • Reindl Harald
            ... practically you can say a full featured network-service is mroe reliable than a simple pipe at least not less, LMTP is a standard protocol mostly identical
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 28, 2012
              Am 28.12.2012 18:38, schrieb John Allen:
              >> A resident LMTP daemon uses fewer CPU cycles than a process that
              >> is created once for each delivery, but with 30 users the difference
              >> matters only if you have a 15-year old computer (i.e. the technology
              >> that was available when I started work on Postfix).
              >>
              > My concern is more with reliability, does moving mail between stack components gain anything from either LDA or LMTP?

              practically you can say a full featured network-service is mroe reliable
              than a simple pipe at least not less, LMTP is a standard protocol mostly
              identical with SMTP

              status codes via LMTP/SMTP are AFAIK more flexible compared to a unix-pipe
              it may be a important information for postfix if the asnwer was 4xx or 5xx
              while 4xx is a temporary error which means "try later, do not reject nor bounce"
            • Wietse Venema
              John Allen: [LMTP daemon or pipe-to-command?] ... I concur with Reindl that as a protocol, LMTP is superior to waiting for the pipe-to-command exit status.
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 28, 2012
                John Allen:
                [LMTP daemon or pipe-to-command?]

                Wietse:
                > A resident LMTP daemon uses fewer CPU cycles than a process that
                > is created once for each delivery, but with 30 users the difference
                > matters only if you have a 15-year old computer (i.e. the technology
                > that was available when I started work on Postfix).

                John Allen:
                > My concern is more with reliability, does moving mail between stack
                > components gain anything from either LDA or LMTP?

                I concur with Reindl that as a protocol, LMTP is superior to waiting
                for the pipe-to-command exit status.

                Wietse
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.