| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: IMAP server alternatives |
 |
|
Hello,
I tried cyrus-imapd, but I'm unsatisfied. Their website was down for a
day. Now it is up, but the pages were not updated after 2003. They had a
majordomo list but it is not functioning. I found another mailing list
but nobody answers. I do not see answer to my question in its documentation.
Are there any alternative IMAP servers that have good support (e.g.
working mailing list, up-to-date documentation), and can share IMAP
folders between users?
These are the ones I see:
bincimap -- only maildir, cannot share folders
courier -- uses the maildir format, but I'm not sure about sharing
cyrus-imapd -- I could not find support for this
dbmail-mysql -- AFAIK no folder sharing
dkimap -- ???
dovecot -- early stages of development, can I trust in this?
imap-uw -- only maildir, cannot share folders
py24-twistedMail -- Looks like this is only a collection of modules
I could use py24-twistedMail to create shared folders, but this requires
re-inventing the weel. What do you recommend?
Thanks,
Laszlo |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still recommend Cyrus - and you can find the lists at CMU from the
following link:
http://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo
The downside of Cyrus is the abysmal documentation, but once you get
hang of it, it's one fine IMAP/POP server. And of course there's
project wiki at
http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu/
which definitely is updated after 2003  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I too can recommend cyrus-imap which I have used for more than two years
without problems. From what I have heard, the alternative seems to be
courier.
The wu-imap does not use maildir but rather mailbox, this means that
people have access to their standard unix mail box as always and add
imap/pop access.
Regarding cyrus documentation: I think they have stopped maintaining the
documentation and moved to use the wiki - unfortunately, you don't
stumble into the wiki first 
Cheers, Erik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i can happily recommend Dovecot, really easy to install (Cyrus really
isn't), supports both Maildir and mbox, been using it for years without
any problems (i used courier before that, but i like dovecot much better)
see here :
http://www.dovecot.org
http://wiki.dovecot.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> dovecot -- early stages of development, can I trust in this?
I've been using Dovecot on various production servers since it was in
beta. I highly recommend it.
--
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to ask a couple more in depth questions pertaining to this
conversation. We recently switched from POP3 & Outlook Express to IMAP
using IMAP-UW & Thunderbird. Personally I have had no issues with
IMAP-UW, but the users in our office have had issues with the mbox
format itself. Specifically they cannot store messages & subfolders
within a folder (referring to the Thunderbird definition of a folder).
In mbox, since a given folder is not a directory, but a file, you cannot
place a subfolder within that file. Outlook Express' POP3
implementation did not have this behavior. Right or wrong, my users
have requested that I attempt to restore this functionality in IMAP. Am
I correct in assuming that if I switch to a mdir format server, it will
operate in the manner they are requesting?
My next question is in regards to scalability, not so much in the way of
users, but in the amount of mail they store. Currently we have about 20
email accounts, and for the most part the users keep their email to a
reasonable amount. However I do have 5 users that insist they save
everything, and do not clean out their InBoxes. Currently they retain
email going back 5 years, and have mail folders in excess of a couple of
gigs apiece. Since one of these people is the owner, I have little
chance of changing this policy. However they are asking that I attempt
to increase the response time of the IMAP server, which can be somewhat
slow for them - especially through SquirrelMail. Would the mdir format
help in this situation as well?
Last question, how difficult is it to back up the mdir format?
Currently I cron a tar job, nightly, to backup the mboxes to another
server to allow for tape backups (the tape unit on the server in
question doesn't want to play nice with FreeBSD), and have had no
difficulty in accomplishing this. Can I accomplish the same style of
backups when moving to mdir?
I'm in the middle of setting up a server to try out various IMAP servers
to test which would provide the best response for our specific needs
(low number of users - high volume of saved email), and would appreciate
any opinions on the matter as it would probably save considerable time
picking the right software to begin with.
Best regards,
Greg Groth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I second (third?) both of the above. I switched my main production mail server
from imap-uw to dovecot about a year ago and have been much happier since. It
is very stable, and handles large folders and concurrent connections to the
same account very smoothly (both things I had issues with using imap-uw). I
think that dovecot's "betas" are like other products' "release
candidates"--I've never had the sense that I'm using beta software.
It also supports shared folders, although I haven't had a need to experiment
with that.
JN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dovecot was simple to install (from ports), has sensible defaults, lets
me seamlessly support POP and IMAP users (about 100), with inboxes
(/var/mail/username) still in mbox format, but all other folders in
maildir format for IMAP users.
Dovecot's developer, Timo Sirainen, is active and extremely helpful on
the mailing list.
Ron Wilhoite |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was a satisfied courier-imap user for several years. A few months ago
I switched to dovecot because it is faster in my installation.
(Transition was easy using maildir with both.)
Both have active developers.
> courier -- uses the maildir format, but I'm not sure about sharing
Works great, bullet-proof in my experience.
> dovecot -- early stages of development, can I trust in this?
Also works great. Easier configuration than courier-imap. Significantly
more responsive than courier-imap with Thunderbird clients here using
IMAP only. Seems very solid; zero problems in first few months of use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for your responses!
I tried to install cyrus-imapd, courier-imapd and dovecot, in this
order.
Dovecot has my preference. I could install it in a few minutes, and it
was very easy to configure. At least it is easier than courier, for me.
Thanks again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that dovecot wins the votes - but does it support virtual
domains? Any tips on migration? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> It seems that dovecot wins the votes - but does it support virtual domains?
I think it does not, but I do not need it. I can use postfix and
mydestination, virtual_maps. This is enough for me.
> Any tips on migration?
>
Yes, it looks easy. I created these namespaces in dovecot.conf:
namespace private {
separator = /
inbox = yes
hidden = yes
prefix = "#mbox/"
location = mbox:/home/%u:INBOX=/var/mail/%u
}
namespace private {
separator = /
prefix = "oldsystem/"
location = mbox:/home/%u
}
namespace private {
separator = /
prefix =
location = maildir:/home/%u/Maildir
}
The first one allows the old mbox format inbox to be used from
"/var/mail/username". (I could have recompiled procmail in order to
deliver to maildir...)
The second one allow the users to view their old mbox style folders.
They can move the messages to the new maildir format, if they wish.
(Drag and drop in thunderbird...) Later I can delete the old mbox folders.
The third one is the default namespace (without name) and it has the new
maildir format.
Best,
Laszlo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> It seems that dovecot wins the votes - but does it support virtual
> domains? Any tips on migration?
That all depends on how you store your user data. It is not dovecot
or courier issue. I have both courier and dovecot working in
parallel on the same mail store. The dovecot is currently just for
testing and the courier is in production (for the last 4 years or
more). We store the domain as part of the user name in a custom ldap
database and courier and dovecot have no issues interfacing with it
with the proper config.
Chad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
