7 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] Courier LDAP and ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Andrew LibbyDec 9, 2002 11:49 am 
ecu...@encontacto.netDec 9, 2002 2:10 pm 
Andrew LibbyDec 9, 2002 4:13 pm 
David BorehamDec 9, 2002 5:16 pm 
ecu...@encontacto.netDec 9, 2002 6:31 pm 
Andrew LibbyDec 10, 2002 5:16 am 
David BorehamDec 10, 2002 7:32 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [courier-users] Courier LDAP and groupsActions...
From:Andrew Libby (ali@commnav.com)
Date:Dec 10, 2002 5:16:41 am
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

Granted that there are some issues with the solution. It will work well for small to medium sized organizations.

This solution (as I've noted) is not for scalability, but for compatability. I did some testing, and was able perform crud operations on both NS4 and OpenLDAP2 with groups of up to 50k members. I won't say retrievals are lightening fast, but they are reasonable. Not recommended for heavily used directories. Might be a decent idea to have a dedicated replica for these types of queries.

Granted, and I agree that generating lists of users based on an attribute value on the user entry is much better. But this is not compatible with the way many products manage groups. There are also administratively defined limits on the number of entries returned. Unless you bind as your administrative user, if you've got large groups then you're also going to bog down the directory server.

The ideal solution is a mailing list manager that can generate, from time to time, a list from LDAP and cache it. Then the list can be mailed frequently without much penalty on the LDAP side. I'm going to have this built into our MLM package. For smallish groups I'd be nice to have it handled by the MTA. I can certianly understand if there is enough argument against it or the community doesn't have the interest.

David Boreham wrote:

and groupofuniquenames are such classes. They contain member and uniquemember attributes. These attributes are distinguised name for entries. Each entry is a member of the group. I'd like to

Note that most (all?) LDAP servers do not implement static groups efficiently for large groups. When I worked on the Netscape LDAP server we constantly had to tell customers not to do this because beyond a few thousand members, the server will bog down serving and modifying the group entry. A design where each user entry has an attribute containing the name of the mailing lists to which they subscribe is much more scalable.

Last time I looked OpenLDAP had the same problem, they're both derived from the original UMich code.

YMMV of course.