On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 06:23:28AM EST, René Clerc wrote: > * David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [01-04-2004 13:16]: > > As for WU-IMAPd, I like it more than Cyrus, because I find the folder > > layout more logical. I'm not wedded to it, though, and if my experiment > > with FUSE (rewriting my address book manager into a filesystem) turns out > > to be a success, the whole IMAPd mess is going to be replaced by a brand > > new daemon that'll maintain a virtual mail filesystem (similar to Plan9's > > mailfs) from an mbox backend. (If I feel like it, I'll also code up some > > Mutt support for it. (It'll be 100% reliable by design, and depending > > on implementation can probably be made arbitrarily efficient, since the > > entire mbox can theoretically be cached without race conditions.) Else, > > I'll just write a trivial IMAPd to feed Mutt from the virtual filesystem.) > > I recently switched from uw-imapd (wasn't that what you meant, Dave?) Um, yeah, that's what I meant :-) > to > dovecot. Simply because I was annoyed by the fact that a standard > uw-imapd compile included the mbox driver, which automatically moves > e-mail from the spool file to my mbox. Yeah, that annoyed me a tad at first, but I find my main mbox to be a more logical place for my mail anyway, so I don't care much. > Dovecot is pretty fast and reliable. I like it. UW-IMAPd is fast enough and reliable enough for me. If I change my mind at some future point, though, it's nice to know there are other products that can be used as a more-or-less drop-in replacement for it :-) Thanks for your input (as always), - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpsH4IRHuTqd.pgp
Description: PGP signature