[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