more mod_smtpd stuff [was Summer of Code]

[Rian Hunter <ri...@MIT.EDU>]

Jem Berkes wrote:
> To address one of the points brought up on IRC, if there is actually a
> non-experimental target for this software any time soon it would make
> more sense to support the 2.0 server as I think few production servers
> would be running 2.1?  I'm just speaking from what I saw, that is,
> among my colleagues I do not know anyone who has tried Apache 2.1 yet.
>  Many are still stuck at 1.3, but those people suck anyway :)

I think that deciding between 2.1 and 2.0 isn't a big deal since we can 
have source compatibility between them. You do make a good point when 
you mention all the poeple who still use 1.3. I think we should support 
2.0, although (i'm not trying to sound negative) I'm pretty sure that 
most of the people that will be using mod_smtpd will be people writing 
specialized smtp setups (and running the latest httpd anyway) and not 
people who run production mail servers, even though mod_smtpd will be 
powerful enough to be a production mail server i just think sys admins 
are more stubborn about changing their mail server setup than the web 
server setup.
-rian

Re: more mod_smtpd stuff [was Summer of Code]

[Matthieu Estrade <me...@apache.org>]

>> Jem Berkes wrote:
>>
>>> To address one of the points brought up on IRC, if there is actually a
>>> non-experimental target for this software any time soon it would make
>>> more sense to support the 2.0 server as I think few production servers
>>> would be running 2.1?

I am not sure all of this smtp stuff will be finished, stable, soon, so 
i think
it's better to prepare code and module for future release, so 2.1.
Doing a mod_smtpd right now with feature is impossible, look how many years it
took for all the others, or just look httpd life...



>> I think that deciding between 2.1 and 2.0 isn't a big deal since we 
>> can have source compatibility between them. You do make a good point

I think 2.1 is a good choice because we can maybe start a code refactoring to
make httpd become apache-2.1 without the protocol name and able to compile
without http support. (we are far from this, i agree).
Coding seriously a new protocol handling is interesting imho to do this.


>> when you mention all the poeple who still use 1.3.

one dot what ??? :p


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: more mod_smtpd stuff [was Summer of Code]

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

Rian Hunter wrote:

> Jem Berkes wrote:
>
>> To address one of the points brought up on IRC, if there is actually a
>> non-experimental target for this software any time soon it would make
>> more sense to support the 2.0 server as I think few production servers
>> would be running 2.1?  I'm just speaking from what I saw, that is,
>> among my colleagues I do not know anyone who has tried Apache 2.1 yet.
>>  Many are still stuck at 1.3, but those people suck anyway :)
>
>
> I think that deciding between 2.1 and 2.0 isn't a big deal since we 
> can have source compatibility between them. You do make a good point 
> when you mention all the poeple who still use 1.3. I think we should 
> support 2.0, although (i'm not trying to sound negative) I'm pretty 
> sure that most of the people that will be using mod_smtpd will be 
> people writing specialized smtp setups (and running the latest httpd 
> anyway) and not people who run production mail servers, even though 
> mod_smtpd will be powerful enough to be a production mail server i 
> just think sys admins are more stubborn about changing their mail 
> server setup than the web server setup.
> -rian


FWIW, your email to this mailing list was handle by Apache::Qsmtpd, 
running on Apache HTTPD 2.1.5:
http://asf.osuosl.org/server-status/

mod_perl + Apache::Qsmtpd.  It handles all incoming email for apache.org.

Don't discount the chances of someone running it in production very very 
soon.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't revolutionize the mail server market 
overnight and completely replace Qmail, but I think it would be pretty 
cool to hear it handled X million emails in a 24 hour period.

-Paul