Philip
I do agree with this, maybe even combine them in with Transports
So that you only have one configuration and you can then parse
out for particular groups of hosts, if you want to or need to, Also
from this have the options for System Filters, hence you can have
Filters that correspond to a single transport/single delivery, instead
of globally. So mail for Bleh.com can be filtered differently then
yaknow.org
Then you have an incoming Transports Configuration, which can
have rules of it's own, and again it allows for more wide ranged of
options, such as (and this is where even object files would be
useful, in saving memory) unix pipe transport, or unix socket, this
could then allow for a unix client do all their email transport work,
through local connections instead of running programs, this would
be useful in programming too, no need of system() or exec() to run
sendmail, or creating a tcp/ip socket to localhost.
And with these as libraries they can be loaded and unloaded as
necessary to reduce memory requirements, since exim almost
constantly requires 3 Megs Idle on my machine, but why have
some features internal when they may only be called once a day.
Again some modularity is beneficial, as seen in Qmail (though
qmail is a pain in the but to do something with), though the only
ideal way of actually performing true modularity, QMail, and no mail
thus far has completed as it still relies to much on the conventional
way of thinking as was the case with sendmail. (To date I have only
seen one group of mailers to not have many security issues,
though one does because of poor coding, are the Fido Mailers,
again Binkley is just coded improperly, with a mailer with their own
directories, and then a seperate program to "Toss" messages into
the appropriate location, such as to be resent, or to be moved
locally)
But to make any changes would be an great undertaking, but it is
do-able, again with work. But this isn't something I am capable of
because of my lack of experience with programming to this level,
but would like to see it in use one day.
Jason
On 14 May 2000, at 11:16, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2000, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
>
> > At some point, Philip did mention that directors and routers are
> > essentialy the same, and he would collapse them into one concept if
> > he was him.
>
> To expand a bit: what I said was that originally directors and routers
> were very different from each other, but as Exim has developed, they
> have become more and more similar (many common options; fewer
> distinguishing restrictions) and that indeed I had wondered about
> combining them into a single kind of item (probably called a "router")
> at some point.
>
> However, the distinction between local and non-local domains is needed
> in a number of different places, so there would still need to be
> something like the local_domains option.
>
> It would, of course, be a major upheaval. Whether it would be possible
> to do it compatibly is something I would have to look at. This, if
> ever, is a long way off.
>
> --
> Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
>
>
>
>
>
---
Jason Robertson
Network Analyst
jason@???
http://www.astroadvice.com
