Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ulowell!apollo!nazgul
From: nazgul@apollo.COM (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: Elm and other mailers for Apollos
Message-ID: <43401fb9.1b147@apollo.COM>
Date: 16 May 89 06:33:00 GMT
References: <43290411.f81c@gtephx.UUCP>
Reply-To: nazgul@apollo.COM (Kee Hinckley)
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 31

In article <43290411.f81c@gtephx.UUCP> barriost@gtephx.UUCP (Tim Barrios) writes:
>We are a large Apollo site (about 700 nodes) running 9.7.1
>(soon to be 10.1) Domain/IX.  We use primarily Unix Sys V
>since we are now part of an ATT JV.
...
>adding to the mailbox (all 700 nodes are linked to one /usr/mail dir).

This is really not a good idea.  Very few mail programs check to
make sure that their 'write()'s succeed.  If the network gets flakey,
or something else goes wrong you could easily lose your entire
mailbox.  In addition you have the cost of 700 users beating on
a single directory every few minutes checking to see if there
is new mail.

With that said I don't have any really good answers however.  The
best alternative is probably a series of distributed postoffices
using sendmail to handle delivery, however the setup and configuration
of such a system will probably be non-trivial at the least.

In general however, Elm has a very good reputation, particularly
in sites where people are not real familiar with Email.  Other PD
mailers which should also work include Mush (Mail Users SHell),
mh (Mail Handler?), xmh (X-based version of same), and mm (??).

						-kee

-- 
### User Environment, Apollo Computer Inc. ###  Public Access ProLine BBS   ###
###     {mit-eddie,yale}!apollo!nazgul     ###  nazgul@pro-angmar.cts.com   ###
###           nazgul@apollo.com            ### (617) 641-3722 300/1200/2400 ###
I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept      responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate   everyone else's.