You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-user@james.apache.org by Jerry M <te...@malcolms.com> on 2013/01/29 16:52:53 UTC
Mixing ver 2.x and 3.x
I have a production systemthat's been running 2.x forever. Pretty much
stable with no real problems. I don't have the time, nor do I want to
take the risk at this point to even think about doing a complete
conversion to 3. And technically, it's still in beta, correct? But I
desperately need an IMAP server for a couple of situations. So a few
questions...
1) James 3.x does support IMAP, correct
2) Is James 3.x / IMAP stable enough to use, assuming I accept the
typicalbeta-code risks?
3) Would you foresee any issues if I install 3.x in the same box with my
production 2.x assuming I attach 3.x to a completely different IP address?
Thanks.
Jerry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: Mixing ver 2.x and 3.x
Posted by Jerry M <te...@malcolms.com>.
I'm trying to get back to this project of installing a parallel v3.x
JAMES on my server. I do have multiple IP addresses available. So I'm
going to head down that path.
I've been digging through the config docs for v2 trying to find where I
restrict JAMES to only listen on a single IP address. I'm apparently
failing at the search terms I'm entering in google to find this. Can
someone help me out? Is there a global config parm for v2 that tells
JAMES to only listen on IP xx.xx.xx.xx as opposed to (I assume) the
default IP *.*.*.*? If not global, do I add a tag to each protocol
processor individually? And then finally, does it work the same way in
v3.x? Or is the configuration different in 3?
Thanks for the help.
Jerry
On 1/30/2013 12:36 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> If your host has two interfaces (Ethernet connection), it will work.
> But if your host has only one interface, you won't be able to bind the
> same port to two different ip@.
>
> Thx, Eric
>
> On 29/01/2013 20:51, Jerry M wrote:
>> Thanks for the info, Eric.
>>
>> I lost you on the port statement. If I'm using port 25, 110, etc on two
>> completely different IP addresses for v2.x and v3.x, and there are still
>> conflicts, I'm missing something. Granted, I have to configure each
>> installation not to look at the default 'all' IP addresses and restrict
>> v2 to listen on only 1 IP address and v3 to listen only on the other IP
>> address. Are you saying that there will still be port conflicts?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>> On 1/29/2013 9:57 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/01/2013 15:52, Jerry M wrote:
>>>> I have a production systemthat's been running 2.x forever. Pretty
>>>> much
>>>> stable with no real problems. I don't have the time, nor do I want to
>>>> take the risk at this point to even think about doing a complete
>>>> conversion to 3. And technically, it's still in beta, correct? But I
>>>> desperately need an IMAP server for a couple of situations. So a few
>>>> questions...
>>>>
>>>> 1) James 3.x does support IMAP, correct
>>>
>>> Correct
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) Is James 3.x / IMAP stable enough to use, assuming I accept the
>>>> typicalbeta-code risks?
>>>
>>> It all depends on your requirements and user expectations.
>>> If you read the mailing list, the biggest issues so far are related to
>>> thread (spool, remote delivery) not working at a certain time.
>>>
>>> Just give it a try...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3) Would you foresee any issues if I install 3.x in the same box
>>>> with my
>>>> production 2.x assuming I attach 3.x to a completely different IP
>>>> address?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You will have issues if both james use the same ports.
>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6039 - Release Date:
>>> 01/17/13
>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6039 - Release Date: 01/17/13
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: Mixing ver 2.x and 3.x
Posted by Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>.
Hi Jerry,
If your host has two interfaces (Ethernet connection), it will work. But
if your host has only one interface, you won't be able to bind the same
port to two different ip@.
Thx, Eric
On 29/01/2013 20:51, Jerry M wrote:
> Thanks for the info, Eric.
>
> I lost you on the port statement. If I'm using port 25, 110, etc on two
> completely different IP addresses for v2.x and v3.x, and there are still
> conflicts, I'm missing something. Granted, I have to configure each
> installation not to look at the default 'all' IP addresses and restrict
> v2 to listen on only 1 IP address and v3 to listen only on the other IP
> address. Are you saying that there will still be port conflicts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On 1/29/2013 9:57 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/01/2013 15:52, Jerry M wrote:
>>> I have a production systemthat's been running 2.x forever. Pretty much
>>> stable with no real problems. I don't have the time, nor do I want to
>>> take the risk at this point to even think about doing a complete
>>> conversion to 3. And technically, it's still in beta, correct? But I
>>> desperately need an IMAP server for a couple of situations. So a few
>>> questions...
>>>
>>> 1) James 3.x does support IMAP, correct
>>
>> Correct
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Is James 3.x / IMAP stable enough to use, assuming I accept the
>>> typicalbeta-code risks?
>>
>> It all depends on your requirements and user expectations.
>> If you read the mailing list, the biggest issues so far are related to
>> thread (spool, remote delivery) not working at a certain time.
>>
>> Just give it a try...
>>
>>>
>>> 3) Would you foresee any issues if I install 3.x in the same box with my
>>> production 2.x assuming I attach 3.x to a completely different IP
>>> address?
>>>
>>
>> You will have issues if both james use the same ports.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6039 - Release Date: 01/17/13
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: Mixing ver 2.x and 3.x
Posted by Jerry M <te...@malcolms.com>.
Thanks for the info, Eric.
I lost you on the port statement. If I'm using port 25, 110, etc on two
completely different IP addresses for v2.x and v3.x, and there are still
conflicts, I'm missing something. Granted, I have to configure each
installation not to look at the default 'all' IP addresses and restrict
v2 to listen on only 1 IP address and v3 to listen only on the other IP
address. Are you saying that there will still be port conflicts?
Thanks.
Jerry
On 1/29/2013 9:57 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
>
> On 29/01/2013 15:52, Jerry M wrote:
>> I have a production systemthat's been running 2.x forever. Pretty much
>> stable with no real problems. I don't have the time, nor do I want to
>> take the risk at this point to even think about doing a complete
>> conversion to 3. And technically, it's still in beta, correct? But I
>> desperately need an IMAP server for a couple of situations. So a few
>> questions...
>>
>> 1) James 3.x does support IMAP, correct
>
> Correct
>
>>
>> 2) Is James 3.x / IMAP stable enough to use, assuming I accept the
>> typicalbeta-code risks?
>
> It all depends on your requirements and user expectations.
> If you read the mailing list, the biggest issues so far are related to
> thread (spool, remote delivery) not working at a certain time.
>
> Just give it a try...
>
>>
>> 3) Would you foresee any issues if I install 3.x in the same box with my
>> production 2.x assuming I attach 3.x to a completely different IP
>> address?
>>
>
> You will have issues if both james use the same ports.
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6039 - Release Date: 01/17/13
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: Mixing ver 2.x and 3.x
Posted by Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>.
On 29/01/2013 15:52, Jerry M wrote:
> I have a production systemthat's been running 2.x forever. Pretty much
> stable with no real problems. I don't have the time, nor do I want to
> take the risk at this point to even think about doing a complete
> conversion to 3. And technically, it's still in beta, correct? But I
> desperately need an IMAP server for a couple of situations. So a few
> questions...
>
> 1) James 3.x does support IMAP, correct
Correct
>
> 2) Is James 3.x / IMAP stable enough to use, assuming I accept the
> typicalbeta-code risks?
It all depends on your requirements and user expectations.
If you read the mailing list, the biggest issues so far are related to
thread (spool, remote delivery) not working at a certain time.
Just give it a try...
>
> 3) Would you foresee any issues if I install 3.x in the same box with my
> production 2.x assuming I attach 3.x to a completely different IP address?
>
You will have issues if both james use the same ports.
> Thanks.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org