Mailing-List: contact server-user-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "James Users List" <server-user@james.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5108BF6F.3080008@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:36:31 +0000
From: Eric Charles <eric@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:19.0) Gecko/20130117 Thunderbird/19.0
To: James Users List <server-user@james.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Mixing ver 2.x and 3.x
References: <5107F055.8050402@malcolms.com> <5107F14D.3070306@apache.org>
 <51083659.3030906@malcolms.com>
In-Reply-To: <51083659.3030906@malcolms.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Jerry,

If your host has two interfaces (Ethernet connection), it will work. But 
if your host has only one interface, you won't be able to bind the same 
port to two different ip@.

Thx, Eric

On 29/01/2013 20:51, Jerry M wrote:
> Thanks for the info, Eric.
>
> I lost you on the port statement.  If I'm using port 25, 110, etc on two
> completely different IP addresses for v2.x and v3.x, and there are still
> conflicts, I'm missing something.  Granted, I have to configure each
> installation not to look at the default 'all' IP addresses and restrict
> v2 to listen on only 1 IP address and v3 to listen only on the other IP
> address.  Are you saying that there will still be port conflicts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On 1/29/2013 9:57 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29/01/2013 15:52, Jerry M wrote:
>>> I have a production systemthat's been running 2.x forever.  Pretty much
>>> stable with no real problems. I don't have the time, nor do I want to
>>> take the risk at this point to even think about doing a complete
>>> conversion to 3.  And technically, it's still in beta, correct? But I
>>> desperately need an IMAP server for a couple of situations.  So a few
>>> questions...
>>>
>>> 1) James 3.x does support IMAP, correct
>>
>> Correct
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Is James 3.x / IMAP stable enough to use, assuming I accept the
>>> typicalbeta-code risks?
>>
>> It all depends on your requirements and user expectations.
>> If you read the mailing list, the biggest issues so far are related to
>> thread (spool, remote delivery) not working at a certain time.
>>
>> Just give it a try...
>>
>>>
>>> 3) Would you foresee any issues if I install 3.x in the same box with my
>>> production 2.x assuming I attach 3.x to a completely different IP
>>> address?
>>>
>>
>> You will have issues if both james use the same ports.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6039 - Release Date: 01/17/13
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org