During the early Dovecot LDA brainstorming discussions, there was some talk about the possibility of including an LMTP interface, and I've noticed that there's an "is it needed?" question about LMTP in Dovecot's TODO file. I'd like to put in a vote for LMTP, and I'm wondering if anyone else has a need for it. Specifically, I'd love an LMTP-enabled LDA that uses hard links when when delivering the same message to multiple recipients (I'm thinking Maildir files), as it would be a nice way to facilitate so-called Single Instance Storage. Glenn
Quoting Glenn Leavell:> I'd like to put in a vote for LMTP, and I'm wondering if anyone else has aSeconded. I think it's The Right Thing. I'm thinking for a while now about the possibility of a plugin in dovecot itself, not some (semi-)external program, that listens to a unix or tcp socket for lmtp connections, so there's no overhead for fork/exec etc. Don't know if that's possible with the current plugin interface, though, and I myself will not be able to look into that in the near future, let alone casting it into working code. (additionally, right now I have no real need for that right now...) I'd not need the sieve stuff (my MTA is already doing that), but it should be able to put the message into a subfolder (e.g. with user+subfolder@domain).> need for it. Specifically, I'd love an LMTP-enabled LDA that uses hard > links when when delivering the same message to multiple recipients (I'm > thinking Maildir files), as it would be a nice way to facilitate so-called > Single Instance Storage.Don't know if dovecot's storage API allows that. It would be a nice thing, but there are implications (e.g. quota) and the overall advantage is not that big, so I don't think it'd be worth the hassle.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 09:26:52PM -0400, Glenn Leavell wrote:> During the early Dovecot LDA brainstorming discussions, there was some > talk about the possibility of including an LMTP interface, and I've > noticed that there's an "is it needed?" question about LMTP in > Dovecot's TODO file. > > I'd like to put in a vote for LMTP, and I'm wondering if anyone else has a > need for it. Specifically, I'd love an LMTP-enabled LDA that uses hard > links when when delivering the same message to multiple recipients (I'm > thinking Maildir files), as it would be a nice way to facilitate so-called > Single Instance Storage.hardlinks only work if the mailboxes reside on the same filesystem, so the choice of hardlink or symlink would be useful, if this was being implemented. on one of my systems, each user's mailbox is a separate ZFS filesystem. :) grant.
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 21:26 -0400, Glenn Leavell wrote:> I'd like to put in a vote for LMTP, and I'm wondering if anyone else has a > need for it. Specifically, I'd love an LMTP-enabled LDA that uses hard > links when when delivering the same message to multiple recipients (I'm > thinking Maildir files), as it would be a nice way to facilitate so-called > Single Instance Storage.This doesn't require LMTP. It could be implemented just as well with the current Dovecot LDA. The one thing that disturbs me with this kind of hardlinking is that then there are no Delivered-To headers (and others?) which are normally added to mails. I'm not planning to implement LMTP server anytime soon, but single instance storage is planned for dbox format. Maildir-hardlinking in LDA could probably implemented while doing it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20060617/da998eb3/attachment.pgp