[Imap-uw] Mix format? must have? Project direction? [was Re:
imap-2007b on SLES10SP1]
mooney at dogbert.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu
Fri Jun 27 14:23:52 PDT 2008
In regard to: [Imap-uw] Mix format? must have? Project direction? [was Re:...:
> Mix format? Why is that a "must have" nowadays?
If you're using UW IMAP, mix has some major advantages over both
traditional format and mbx.
> Also, As for 2007'c', where would one obtain sources for it? I take it
> that it was never actually officially released, but I
> seem to remember Mark saying it was "ready to go".
I think you're thinking of 2007b, as that was what was unreleased when
Mark was let go.
> As for other features/work -- does anyone know if another UW project is
> picking up imapw? It seems to be fairly widely used.
The future is uncertain, but it seems highly unlikely that UW would be
the driving force behind UW imapd in a year's time. If it's going to
continue to get future development, it probably has to come from some
> It seems that Cyrus IMAP is the only open-source alternative available
> that has any 'traction'?
I believe that is incorrect. Cyrus is probably the best known
alternative, but I think dovecot is compelling, especially since it
apparently can index traditional format -- kind of a better (IMHO) mbx.
Mark also commented favorably on dovecot on this list.
There are other options as well. In fact, there are a surprising number
of options. Do a web search for the script "imapsync", download it, and
then look at the products its been tested with in its README. That turned
up several free or open source IMAP implementations I had never heard of.
Several of them are definitely worth another look.
Tim Mooney mooney at dogbert.cc.ndsu.NoDak.edu
Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
More information about the Imap-uw