UW-IMAPD (was Re: [Gllug] Servers and other irritations...)

[Mike Brodbelt]

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 13:31, Thom May wrote:
> * Stephen Harker (steve at pauken.co.uk) wrote :
> > Is UW-IMAP well known for knackering systems? Should I be worried about using 
> > it? I use it here at work for the company but there are only about 30 users 
> > on it so it doesn't work that hard. This is not the first time someone has 
> > mentioned it on this list in the past few months so there must be something 
> > in it.

UW IMAP has had a somewhat distressing history of security holes. That
said, it's easier to set up than any of the other IMAP servers, and
supports quite a few back end mail storage formats.
 
> Pretty much everything from UW is soul-destroyingly evil.
> That said, it's not that bad. compared to, say, Exchange. Or Netscape
> Messaging Server.
> Courier or Cyrus are generally much better choices for IMAP servers.

One big problem with Courier is that the author sometimes thinks the
IMAP standard is wrong. When this happens, he tends to implement what he
thinks the standard should have said, and not what it does say. There
are several mail clients that don't play well with Courier as a result.
Outlook is know for being problematic, so if you're trying to convince
people that free software is reliable and trouble free, and you have
Outlook users, Courier may not be the way to go.

Cyrus, after the pain of getting it installed, and learning more about
SASL than you ever wanted to know, is worth the effort. It's really very
nice.

Mike.


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug