On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 09:39:53PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote: | Phil Howard wrote: | > | > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 10:12:52PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote: | > | > | Quoting Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: | > | | > | > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:34:24AM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote: | > | > | > | > | On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote: | > | > | | > | > | > Is this done so transparently with Cyrus-IMAP that it didn't | > | > | > even need mention? Or is it not done at all? | > | > | | > | > | There are some unofficial hacks to do virtual domains in 2.1, there's | > | > | reasonable support for it in 2.2. | > | > | > | > How will [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] login? Will it know which | > | > user is logging in by them providing that as their login name? | > | | > | Yes. The virtdomain support in 2.2 can use either fully qualified useridz (as | > | you show above) or it can do a reverse lookup of the interface that the | > | connection comes in on (for those who have IPs to burn). | > | > Any idea when 2.2 will make it to BETA, or if a multiple-domain (only) | | _Probably_ sometime this month.
Can you tell me if this is implemented by changing mailbox names adding the domain name, or if it just simply keeps each domain in a separate file tree much as one might do by having run each domain with a separate daemon instance listing to specific interface addresses? | > patch is available for 2.1.11? | | I can pretty much guarantee you that no "official" virtdomains support | will be added to 2.1. In fact, the 2.1 branch is in a feature freeze. One problem I often encounter in dealing with various mail programs is this term "virtual domain" which I presume you mean by "virtdomain". The problem is there are various different, and conflicting, overload usages of this term. One way "virtual domain" has been used is when an MTA (traditionally sendmail) would accept any of several different domain names, but each would be delivered as if the RHS was the same as the local machine. This method required non-overloaded LHS addresses. While many people did use other terms, many did use "virtual domain" as well. Another way allowed overloaded LHS by translating some or all addresses to specific local users. Again, there was a mix of usage. The Apache web server uses the term "virtual domain" in several ways, but generally being applied to how domain names and server names are looked up or defaulted based on the destination IP address of the request. In some configurations, each domain requires a different IP address. In others, they can overload the same IP address (HTTP 1.1 "Host: " attribute required to distinguish domain names). Having been in discussions, both for mail server issues as well as for web server issues, where the term "virtual domain" was used in different ways, sometimes 2 or 3 different ways by other participants, which resulted in much confusion, often gnashing of teeth, and the occaisional unmerited flamefest, I hope you can see that I am sensitive to any use of the term "virtual domain". It is one I wish would be banished from any use. In a case where the domain name is obvious, either because the connected to IP address is associated with it, or the user logins in with it, and is retrieving email which is distinguished by having been addressed to the full user@domain which is logged in, then I would say there is nothing "virtual" about the domain at all. It is in fact very real. What might be considered special is that this domain isn't the same as the canonical hostname of the machine serving the mail. Using the term "virtual" just because of this can lead to confusion because someone might think that one of the other meanings may be intended. I believe a better term for such a domain is "hosted" or maybe "guest". For example if the machine is called "mail1.example.net" and I login as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", then "mail1.example.net" is the host or 'hoster', and "sales.example.com" is hosted by it, and is thus the 'hostee'. I'm certainly in no position to say which terms should be used beyond just giving my suggestions. But I really would urge not using the term "virtual domain" without at least including a precise definition that can exclude all other meanings besides the one intended. But I think we can find some better terms that will all be different for each of the different concepts. The choice of these terms might depend on just how Cyrus 2.2 will implement the domains (I do not know this, yet). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
