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 Claude Duguay <cl...@verizon.net> on 2005/03/24 18:37:32 UTC
Gateway Authentication
It's been some time since I've posted to this mailing list but I have two
comments and questions:
1) I was dissapointed to see that, while a fix that was provided,
ready-made, a bug that seemend important to me was still in UNRESOLVED
status. Unfortunately, I took it for granted that a ready-made fix would not
remain UNRESOLVED for long and upgraded to James 2.2.0 on my production
server, only to find that the RemoteDelivery gateway configuraiton does not
allow for defining a username and password for authentication. My questions
related to this are: a) Why has the fix not been incorporated? b) When will
it be?
2) I'm finidng the long wait for IMAP support highly questionable. Though
I'm glad to see that there is discussion of classloader-separated mailet
packages, it's dissapointing that this is also not present in the current
release. The two articles about James that I published for IBM were released
in June of 2003, close to two years ago. I can't conceive of any reason why
both the classloader deployment and IMAP support have been so long in
comming. I'm not really asking why. What I'd really like to hear is a
commitment to get the job done and a timeline to covers these two critical
features, still not in place despite a clear understanding that they are
important to the user community. It's a tough sell when there's no IMAP
support and 'they're working on it' isn't really cutting it anymore.
Comments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: Gateway Authentication
Posted by Serge Knystautas <se...@lokitech.com>.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:37:32 -0800
"Claude Duguay" <cl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 1) I was dissapointed to see that, while a fix that was
>provided, ready-made, a bug that seemend important to me
>was still in UNRESOLVED status. Unfortunately, I took it
>for granted that a ready-made fix would not remain
>UNRESOLVED for long and upgraded to James 2.2.0 on my
>production server, only to find that the RemoteDelivery
>gateway configuraiton does not allow for defining a
>username and password for authentication. My questions
>related to this are: a) Why has the fix not been
>incorporated? b) When will it be?
There are no simple answers. We have lack of active
developers. You can blame that on sick of working on the
old Avalon platform, growing families, contracting picking
up, SVN migration, etc... But bottom line is no
committers are actively developing James. Your issue in
JIRA is right where it should be, and I'm sure that's the
best way to get it reviewed and incorporated. There are
several other patches that are sitting in JIRA waiting to
be added as well, so it has nothing to do with your patch
AFAIK.
> 2) I'm finidng the long wait for IMAP support highly
>questionable. Though I'm glad to see that there is
>discussion of classloader-separated mailet packages, it's
>dissapointing that this is also not present in the
>current release. The two articles about James that I
>published for IBM were released in June of 2003, close to
>two years ago. I can't conceive of any reason why both
>the classloader deployment and IMAP support have been so
>long in comming. I'm not really asking why. What I'd
>really like to hear is a commitment to get the job done
>and a timeline to covers these two critical features,
>still not in place despite a clear understanding that
>they are important to the user community. It's a tough
>sell when there's no IMAP support and 'they're working
>on it' isn't really cutting it anymore. Comments?
I don't tell people that we're working on IMAP... it's an
experimental feature without any active development.
There are a few people who have worked at it, but
unfortunately there has not been enough free time to get
it ready for prime time. It is a big limitation of IMAP,
but unfortunately in a project like this, the squeeky
wheel doesn't get the grease so much as the personal itch
gets scratched (sorry for my euphemisms).
We are actively supporting as many users as possible
through the mailing lists, and otherwise sustaining the
project... think of it as development hibernation, not
termination. I'm aware that myself, Noel, Danny, and
Vicenzo are working intermittently on James but have not
had time to take the lead or substantively do any
development.
I feel like I've written this type of email a few too many
times, sounding half defeatist/half hopeful. Still, I'd
rather answer your email than let something like that go
unanswered.
--
Serge Knystautas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: 15 second delay on closed system
Posted by Serge Knystautas <se...@lokitech.com>.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:32:52 -0500
"John G. Norman" <jo...@7fff.com> wrote:
> So . . . Why would the reachability of non-authoritative
>secondary DNS make a difference either way?
My guess (very much so) is that James is trying the DNS
servers in reverse order. This is a total guess, but I
can't be sure how it's loading the DNS configurations... I
don't think we've ever talked about what might happen if
you had one good and one bad DNS server.
Anyway, that does explain a 15 second timeout since you
see no CPU crunching and a 15 second delay, and most
importantly, it disappears when you remove the secondary
DNS.
I would confirm that the server can reach the secondary
DNS server (at the network level... use a tool like
nslookup).
--
Serge Knystautas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
RE: 15 second delay on closed system [P.S.]
Posted by "John G. Norman" <jo...@7fff.com>.
[P.S.] In the James config.xml, specifying the DNS as authoritative or not
doesn't have an impact on this particular issue. So it's something about
the specification of the secondary DNS resources, and their availability.
At 01:32 PM 3/25/2005 -0500, John G. Norman wrote:
>Noel (and anyone else . . .),
>
>Thank you very, very much for offering to probe a bit into my problem.
>
>I think I have a solution but I don't understand it. Without the solution,
>here is what I see in the spool log w/ DEBUG:
>
>On the sending machine:
>--The e-mail is sent. The log goes quiet.
>
>On the receiving machine:
>--Nothing.
>--Then some 15 seconds later, the mail comes in.
>
>Now here's the thing:
>
>I am running a DNS server on .10. On all machines, the primary DNS is
>given as this machine. I also have a couple of external DNS's listed, but
>typically the router is unplugged from the outside internet.
>
>First, in the James config.xml, I changed the DNS listing (to
>192.168.50.10) to authoritative=true. This seemed to make no difference.
>
>Then--and this is the interesting bit--I removed the two external DNS
>servers. Now there's no delay.
>
>Also, when I *did* have the two external secondary DNS servers, if I
>plugged my router in so that those two were reachable: No delay.
>
>So . . . Why would the reachability of non-authoritative secondary DNS
>make a difference either way?
>
> John
>
>At 12:36 AM 3/25/2005 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> > I'm stumped. Also not 100% sure of what log should show me
>> > what the problem is
>>
>>Turn on debug for the spoolmanager, and check to see if there are any delays
>>between steps.
>>
>> --- Noel
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
RE: 15 second delay on closed system
Posted by "John G. Norman" <jo...@7fff.com>.
Noel (and anyone else . . .),
Thank you very, very much for offering to probe a bit into my problem.
I think I have a solution but I don't understand it. Without the solution,
here is what I see in the spool log w/ DEBUG:
On the sending machine:
--The e-mail is sent. The log goes quiet.
On the receiving machine:
--Nothing.
--Then some 15 seconds later, the mail comes in.
Now here's the thing:
I am running a DNS server on .10. On all machines, the primary DNS is given
as this machine. I also have a couple of external DNS's listed, but
typically the router is unplugged from the outside internet.
First, in the James config.xml, I changed the DNS listing (to
192.168.50.10) to authoritative=true. This seemed to make no difference.
Then--and this is the interesting bit--I removed the two external DNS
servers. Now there's no delay.
Also, when I *did* have the two external secondary DNS servers, if I
plugged my router in so that those two were reachable: No delay.
So . . . Why would the reachability of non-authoritative secondary DNS make
a difference either way?
John
At 12:36 AM 3/25/2005 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I'm stumped. Also not 100% sure of what log should show me
> > what the problem is
>
>Turn on debug for the spoolmanager, and check to see if there are any delays
>between steps.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: 15 second delay on closed system
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> I'm stumped. Also not 100% sure of what log should show me
> what the problem is
Turn on debug for the spoolmanager, and check to see if there are any delays
between steps.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
15 second delay on closed system
Posted by "John G. Norman" <jo...@7fff.com>.
I've set up a small closed network. I'm using this little network for a
demo. I'm observing 15 second delays in sending -- can't seem to see why
there would be any appreciable delay.
The config is:
The network IP addresses are 192.168.50.*
All systems are running Windows XP Pro SP 2.
A DNS server (SANS -- a scaled-down version of Posadis --
http://www.posadis.com/news/050108-sans?DokuWiki=a77bd42d2aea0d787b15fbd85e76fdc4)
runs on 192.168.50.10.
Other machines have IPs 192.168.50.20, .30, .40. Each has a name.
The names are:
.10 sysa.com
.20 sysb.com
.30 sysc.com
.40 sysd.com
Each runs James.
The James config.xml on each is the one shipped with James (with host names
set appropriately -- I am using SMTP AUTH).
The good news: Mail moves between systems.
The bad news: There is a sending delay. The delay is very similar for
e-mail sent between all systems.
Here's an example header of a mail send to john@sysa.com from
marialopez321@sysd.com:
Return-Path: <ma...@sysd.com>
Received: from 192.168.50.40 ([192.168.50.40])
by sysa.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.2.0) with SMTP ID 199
for <jo...@sysa.com>;
Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h3qual40 ([192.168.50.40])
by sysd.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.2.0) with SMTP ID 273
for <jo...@sysa.com>;
Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:23:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00...@h3qual40>
From: "Maria Lopez" <ma...@sysd.com>
To: "John G. Norman" <jo...@sysa.com>
References: <00...@h3qual40>
<00...@h3qual10>
<00...@h3qual40>
<00...@h3qual10>
Subject: Re: test
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:23:29 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0078_01C530A6.F5E950A0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Delivered-To: john@sysa.com
I'm stumped. Also not 100% sure of what log should show me what the problem
is -- I don't see any obvious "hang" in any of the logs.
John N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org