If the community has enough resources to fork the whole project, it would probably be far more efficient and easier to just fork the Director component.
I’m not familiar enough with dovecot sources to tell if this is possible, but if the community really wants to keep Director alive, maybe it should start investigating if building it as an out of tree component is possible ?
Le 2 nov. 2022 à 17:46, Jan Hugo Prins jhp@jhprins.org a écrit :
I think the only thing they will gain is a community that is angry and will in the end leave the product / fork the complete product.
Jan Hugo
On November 2, 2022 5:39:53 PM GMT+01:00, Brad Schuetz brad@omnis.com wrote: On 11/2/22 03:54, Aki Tuomi wrote: On 02/11/2022 11:55 EET Frank Wall fw@moov.de wrote:
On 2022-11-02 09:11, Aki Tuomi wrote: You can also see the email sent by others which shows how you can do this without replication, using proxy and passdb to direct users to right backend. Which is basically what director does. It's not the same thing.
It is not critical functionality. You can feasibly run a two-node dovecot system on NFS without having director. It seems to be critical enough to offer a replacement for paying customers, while at the same time leaving the community edition with no valid replacement.
Ciao
- Frank Can you tell me what kind of functionality you are unable to achieve with the passdb solution?
Aki
Can you tell us what you are gaining (other than monitarily) by removing a completely functionally working feature that numerous people are using?
Adding new paid features is one thing (i.e. nginx), taking away a feature to replace it with a paid feature is something completely different.
-- Brad
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.