[Dovecot] How long to 1.0?

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Kenneth Porter <shiva at sewingwitch.com>:

> On Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:07 AM -0600 Eric Rostetter
> <rostetter at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I am one of the view who have not been able to use dovecot because it
> > isn't stable enough, and as such I'm one of the few who stands behind
> > the alpha naming of it.
> 
> How stable is "enough"?

Less than one segfault per day would be nice.

> What server are you comparing it to? And if

Just about anything else?

> another
> server is more stable, what would motivate us to switch back to Dovecot
> once it achieves comparable stability?

Speed.  It is much faster than the others.  Plus it is more actively 
developed than some older ones, and many claim it is more secure, etc.

> I switched from UW-IMAP based on the Fedora switch, and Dovecot seems
> much
> faster than the UW code. (I'm using sendmail/procmail with mbox on the
> delivery side, and UW's own mbx format when I was using UW-IMAP.)

See, you already knew the answer then.

> The one issue I've seen with Dovecot (still using 0.99) is the occasional
> corruption of one Thunderbird user's Trash folder with the insertion of a
> few K of nul's at the top.

Glad it works for you.

> I'd guess that Timo's designation of 1.0 as "alpha" is what keeps Fedora
> from updating to it.

And you'd be wrong...

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Go Longhorns!