[Dovecot] deliver vs lda

[Daniel L. Miller]

Timo Sirainen wrote:
> deliver is the binary name. but it's configured inside protocol lda {}
> section. This is getting annoying, any thoughts on what would be a good
> unifying name?
>
> a) deliver binary, protocol deliver {}
>
> b) lda binary, protocol lda {}
>
> c) dovecot-lda binary, protocol lda {}
>
> d) mda binary, protocol mda {}
>
> e) dovecot-mda binary, protocol mda {}
>
> f) something else?
>
> In any case protocol lda {} would work for a while longer for backwards
> compatibility.
>
> c) and e) choices also makes me think if e.g. imap and imap-login should
> be called dovecot-imap and dovecot-imap-login instead. People have had
> trouble finding them since ps|grep dovecot doesn't find them..
>   
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.

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).

I like option c.
-- 
Daniel