[Spambayes] SMTPProxy [Was Training]

Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions tim at fourstonesExpressions.com
Mon Feb 24 15:54:13 EST 2003

2/24/2003 3:49:27 PM, "Mark Hammond" <mhammond at skippinet.com.au> wrote:

>I've 3 queries here:
>* Why will asyncore eventually kill someone?  asyncore is complex to use,
>but I see no reason to believe it unreliable or unable to scale.

No... that's not what I was saying.  The current smtpproxy doesn't use 
asyncore.  I'd rather not have to run a separate process for each smtp server 
I'm proxying.  I'd rather not have to run a separate process for smtp proxy 
and pop3 proxy.

>* Why are threads, as opposed to asyncore, not suitable for a personal pop
>or smtp server?  I would have thought that the maximum number of connections
>that need to be supported would be only "a few", and therefore OK to
>implement using threads.

I'll have to leave this one to Richie... I wondered the same thing, but he 
assured me that there are valid reasons to use asyncore over threads...
>I'm still confused as to why multiple processes hitting the same db is a

I could be totally confused about this.  I just get a bit iffy when files are 
being shared/updated by sevaral processes, without locking, transaction 
control, etc. etc.

c'est moi - TimS

More information about the Spambayes mailing list