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

[Jim Bailey]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 08:33:41PM +0100, Mike Brodbelt wrote:
> 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.
>
I gotten Outlook, Outlook Express and Entourage to work with Courier,  I
tend to do most of my client testing with these since I work on the
basis that if it will work with these it will work with anything. ;)

Peace Jim

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