[Dovecot] deliver vs lda

[Daniel L. Miller]

Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:38 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
>   
>> Having a consistent name prefix for all the processes sounds nice - but 
>> then you'd stick out as the exception to typical multi-process server 
>> names (like Postfix's master, smtpd, cleanup, etc.).  Is it a Good Thing 
>> to deviate from accepted (poor) practices?  Hmm....
>>
>> Other tradeoffs...more space consumed in logfiles.  More screen width 
>> consumed during listings.  Not necessarily a Good Thing - not 
>> necessarily a Bad Thing.  But something to ponder on.
>>     
>
> No, I wouldn't write the dovecot- prefix to log files. So while the
> binary names would be dovecot-lda, dovecot-imap-login, etc. the logs
> would contain only lda(user), imap-login(user), etc.
>   
So the process name won't match the name in the log file?  That sounds 
like a Bad Thing.
> Another thing I was thinking about previously was that in process lists
> they were prefixed with dovecot/. So the binary names could be lda,
> imap-login, etc. but they'd show up in process lists as dovecot/lda,
> dovecot/imap-login, etc.
>   
That I like.
>   
>> I would also consider the Dovecot architecture.  As I (mis)understand 
>> it, the "dovecot" process spawns the necessary imap, pop3, and login 
>> daemons.  So having a "dovecot.conf" file for controlling these is quite 
>> appropriate.  However, unless I've missed something (quite likely) - 
>> "deliver" has nothing to do with the listening daemons.  So having the 
>> "lda" configuration in the dovecot.conf file might be inappropriate - I 
>> would suggest splitting that off to a "dovecot-lda.conf" file (or 
>> whatever you change the delivery agent name to).
>>     
>
> But deliver also reads dovecot.conf and inside protocol lda {} it can
> also override all settings from dovecot.conf. So I don't really like the
> idea of splitting the configuration. Also in v1.3+ the only thing that
> reads dovecot.conf is doveconf binary, master and deliver and everything
> else get their configuration from it.
>   
Told you I didn't know what I was talking about!

-- 
Daniel