[Spambayes] SMTPProxy [Was Training]

[Meyer, Tony]

> 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 would think that if smtpproxy does get used, then the multiple accounts capability would just be copied from pop3proxy.  So it would use whatever pop3proxy does.

> I'd rather not have to run a separate process 
> for smtp proxy and pop3 proxy.

Well, as it is, it's not a separate process, it's a separate thread.

[asyncore vs 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...

smtpproxy is only using threads at the moment because it was a 30 second solution to using the same database without looking at the asyncore stuff, or modifying pop3proxy too much.  I have no particular attachment to the threads :)

[Mark]
> >I'm still confused as to why multiple processes hitting the 
> >same db is a problem.
[TimS]
> 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.

I can't see any problems with the sharing apart from if two 'users' of the db tried to change the same message at the same time, but that could easily be fixed (in the thread version at least, my asyncore knowledge is very limited) with a couple of signals.

=Tony Meyer