Website suggestion, 2.8.0-pre4

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

--On Friday, March 09, 2012 6:11 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount 
<quanah at zimbra.com> wrote:

> --On Saturday, March 10, 2012 2:32 AM +0100 Mark Martinec
> <Mark.Martinec+amavis at ijs.si> wrote:
>
>> /dev/rob0,
>>
>>> A suggestion (or maybe it is there and I missed it): a files/ or
>>> download/ directory to make it easier to browse/find files for
>>> download.
>>
>> I need to clean that directory before opening it up, contains
>> plenty of intermediate, experimental and dedicated versions
>> and is unsightly :)
>>
>>> Is amavisd-new-2.8.0-pre3.tar.gz still the most recent prerelease
>>> version?
>>
>> I just wrapped a amavisd-new-2.8.0-pre4 and added a link to it
>> to a News section on the amavis web page:
>>
>>   http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/amavisd-new-2.8.0-pre4.tar.gz
>>
>>   http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/release-notes.txt
>>
>> The 2.8.0-pre4 should be compatible with 2.8.0-pre3 as well as
>> with 2.7.0.  Compared to -pre3 it contains some bug fixes,
>> plus a support for 0MQ (a.k.a. ZeroMQ or ZMQ) message passing
>> library ( www.zeromq.org ).
>>
>> The 0MQ can replace the use of BerkeleyDB for SNMP monitoring,
>> for child process status monitoring (nanny), and perhaps logging.
>> Its main advantage over BerkeleyDB is that it avoids the problem
>> of lock contention on database updates, which can have significant
>> impact when a number of busy child processes is large. An additional
>> benefit is that monitoring can be done on a separate host, with
>> a potential for easier monitoring of multiple hosts running amavisd.
>>
>> There are no immediate plans to remove BerkeleyDB, both choices
>> will exist for some time, but one or the other can be disabled.
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> A few questions/comments on 2.8.0-pre4. :)
>
> 1) avoid persistent connections to SQL and LDAP servers - at the expense
>   of about 3 to 7 ms elapsed time for a reconnect; persistent connections
>   from mostly idling child processes unnecessarily consume database server
>   resources (e.g. a TCP socket) and may become stuck when some
> intermediate
>   stateful device like a firewall or a NAT decides to drop stale sessions;
>   reported by Jernej Porenta;
>
>  Can this be made optional?  A well written LDAP server is designed to
> handle persistent connections.  I don't know what Jernej was using, but
> apparently it wasn't well designed.  In any case, well designed LDAP
> servers also allow you to set a server-side timeout if you really don't
> want idle connections sitting about.
>
> 2) I see you did some work on the Amavis portions.  Will a scalable LDAP
> solution be supported as previously discussed?  See discussion from
> 12/10/2008

3) LDAP schema expansion to include looking domain disclaimer maps.  The 
solution in 2.6.4 doesn't scale well with 10,000+ domains.  (See discussion 
from 12/10/2008)

Thanks,
Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
Zimbra, Inc
A Division of VMware, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration