Re: [exim] Defining "Virtual"

Góra strony
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: W B Hacker
Data:  
Dla: exim users
Temat: Re: [exim] Defining "Virtual"
John Robinson wrote:
> On 29/01/2007 15:15, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:50:33 +0100, Kjetil Torgrim Homme
>> <kjetilho@???> wrote:
>>>        An e-mail server supports virtual domains if it can handle
>>>        addresses in more than one domain separately.
>> I happen to disagree with that definition. Way too easy, and not
>> helping in the debate to exactly specifying what is needed and what
>> not.

>
> It is indeed rather vague, but I think it's probably as good as you'll
> get for all possible meanings. I rather think that's the problem with
> the generic term "virtual" in the first place, and it's too late to
> impose a strict definition on exactly what's meant by it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John.
>


Not to keep beating a dead horse, but 'virtual' - over-used or otherwise, is,
and probably has always been, the wrong word anyway.

We have (all) for years been speaking of 'virtual' web-hosting, 'virtual
mail servers', 'virtual users', and 'virtual' hosting in general.

Taking the old saw that 'virtual means the next word is a lie' - there is
nothing 'virtual' about any of these services.

- They genuinely DO serve web-pages, DO provide MTA functionality, DO support
identifiable users and groups of users - all generally with a degree of exclusivity.

- Unique, IOW, as they are (ordinarily) the ONLY server(s) providing those
services for the domains and 'users' in question.

It isn't that we need to redefine 'virtual' so much as to start calling these
things what they actually are:

Shared, common, community, condominium or otherwise (pick a word..) 'multi' ...

... domain

... user

... user community (list or database - partitioned somehow)

...servers, services, or whatever.

Where is the 'virtual'?

Historically, it may have come from the support of a UID that did not have a
system login account or access to a shell.

But that is not a 'virtual' user, either.

They are 'real enough, simply belong to a restricted class that does not
(necessarily) include a 'normal' login.

Shared resources. Multi-<whatever>. But NOT 'virtual'.

JM2CW

Bill Hacker