Re: async and tls
Douglas Hunter <dug <at> allafrica.com>
2008-05-02 02:31:24 GMT
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 1-May-08, at 5:20 PM, Chris Babcock wrote:
>> Async (at this point) is best suited to systems with very high
>> performance and concurrency requirements. If your system can run
>> without using async, the other modes are simpler to implement and
>> better tested.
> On the other hand I'm happy to have people putting -async to use, as
> that's the best way we'll find bugs. It's very stable for us in
> "production" albeit on a spamtrap rather than serving real mail. And
> there are a few others on this list that appear to be using it in
> production on non-spamtrap environments.
I should add that all of my tests with async proved it to be quite
stable for our uses, with the exception of the tls plugin, which we knew
to need work from following the list traffic.
I only tested STARTTLS from the default port with the patch I supplied,
but that seemed to work well. I'm just not confident enough with my
async-fu to recommend that patch to other folks until it gets some more
action and community vetting. But the tls plugin isn't a problem with
async, it's something we all know needs to be upgraded in order to work
Thanks for the async server, and if there is anything other than trying
to use it live that I can do to help it out, please let me know.