Re: Future of Qmail-LDAP

Hi Hugo,

I would be interesting in trying out your patches.


Hugo Monteiro wrote:
> On 02/09/2010 04:50 AM, Philipp Kolloczek wrote:
>> Hello folks.
>>
>> I have followed all of the messages which came in reply to Hugo's msg.
>> There are many interesting points of view and as I use qmail-ldap
>> myself here is another one. ;)
>>
>>   
>>> For some time now i've been wondering if there are any plans to enhance
>>> Qmail-LDAP in a near future.
>>>      
>> Hugo, I sign that.
>> It would be great to see a development of qmail-ldap in the future.
>> Equal to other I, or let better say we - the ISP I'm imeployed - use
>> qmail-ldap since years.
>>
>> As you can imagine it is a heavy patched version to fit our needs.
>> It includes some patches which can be found in Hugo's site, some self
>> developed ones, some changed to fit needs and fit in code and so on.
>> Just to note feature like the big quota patch, a mailhost routing 
>> feature or
>> user based settings for spam/virus checking and attachment sizes.
>>
>> In summary we use it actually in a HA Mail-Cluster based on two
>> Loadbalancer, a number of Sun T2000 and a NetAPP Storagesystem
>> for the main part (MTA / qmail-pop / 3rd Party IMAP).
>>
>> In combination with qmail-queue-patch and Simscan we have include
>> a spam filtering/checking farm and also two different virus scanning
>> engines. Virus engine depends on customers choise.
>>
>> With simscan and SpamAssassin tools like DCC and Razor are easy to
>> integrate, actually we use DCC. And based on Hugo's qenvscan patch
>> we actually are in the process of integrating a customer based
>> senderquota and also some kind of greylisting depending of
>> the amount of errors a sender IP/user is generation, like hammering
>> with massiv RCPT failures, relaying probes or ignoring the rctp count
>> limit.
>>
>>    
>
>
> Hello Philipp,
>
> I too have some other patches that i have not yet published because i 
> feel they need a little bit more testing. I can tell you though that i 
> already have work done in the matter of per user message throttling, 
> either based on number of messages or message size.
>
> Another thing that i have implemented is the concept of SMTP (pre 
> DATA) and EOM (end of message) protocol state, correlating both within 
> a single SMTP session. That allows performing two sets of independent 
> tests but maintaining a relation between the two. That will allow the 
> use of SMTP policy servers such as Cluebringer (policyd v2).
>
> I could arrange publication of that work if anyone is interested.
>
> I also wonder what are the feelings of both the authors and users 
> about turning Qmail-LDAP into a community driven project. In the event 
> that the original authors are not available to continue to work on 
> Qmail-LDAP, i wonder what are the feelings regarding a possible fork 
> of the project.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hugo Monteiro.
>