Re: advice on webmail/fnord chroot setup

Thus spake Dale Gallagher ([email protected]):
> - CGI (with persistent perl/speedy cgi)

fnord does not have fastcgi support and no mod_perl-like construct.
But you should be able to use cgi-fcgi from the fastcgi distribution.

> The issues arise when referencing binaries such as qmail-inject (might 
> have to use SMTP instead) and DSPAM utilities from the webmail cgi.

> I've started my chroot journey here:
> http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/chroot.html

> I'm also considering gatling, though it appears that gatling proxies CGI 
> requests (passing to fnord), so I'm not sure which route to go, given 
> that there's a mix of CGI and static file (mail messages) delivery. 
> Would the gatling/fnord mix yield a better performing system for this 
> scenario (proxy+additional TCP overhead)?

You don't have to run fnord in a chroot.  Using chroot is recommended
for security reasons, but if your application won't work with chroot,
you can compile fnord without chroot support.  Or you can simple run
fnord as non-root, in which case it will not be able to chroot.

gatling now also has real CGI support, although it is as experimental as
the rest of gatling :-)

Felix