[Dovecot] 1.0 roadmap - fs quota problem

[Chris H.]

Quoting Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi>:

> On Jun 13, 2006, at 12:53 AM, Chris H. wrote:
>
>> Wow. We never should have switched from UW-IMAP to Dovecot. Having a
>> 750,000 user base. We made the switch to Dovecot in an effort to  trim a
>> little overhead on our systems. But our OS (FreeBSD 5.4 - UFS) version
>> is rapidly reaching EOL. All future versions will default to UFS2.
>> Dovecot seems to handle UFS correctly. But if we had known that we
>> were required to write our own code to stay onboard with Dovecot, we
>> would have *never* made the switch. It appears that Dovecot is not
>> an appropriate choice for Production systems. But rather; better  suited
>> for hobbyists. I sure wish we had known this from the start.
>
> Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but before switching I would  
> have supposed that you had checked that Dovecot does everything you  
> need it to do. Especially because UW-IMAP doesn't even *try* to  
> support the QUOTA extension that you obviously need so much, and that 
>  Dovecot at least even tries to support it even if not in every 
> single  operating system (or file system).
Couldn't agree more. I chose to switch to Dovecot *because* it is *so*
much more advanced. Make no mistake; I believe Dovecot is *superiour*
to UW-IMAP.
>
> Doveocot isn't owned by any single company. I don't think the web  
> page even tries to claim anything like it anywhere. Are you saying  
> that I should devote my entire life to the one thing that *you*  
> yourself consider important to Dovecot? Even though most other people 
>  don't really care about it?
Not at all. I couldn't be more grateful for the time you've spent
and the benifit that I (and others) enjoy because of it. It never
occured to me to be ungrateful. I never indicated I wasn't grateful
for the work you've already done. I was meerly expressing concern
that I would be required to perform maintenance that is beyond my
time constraints to manage, in order to continue to use (and enjoy)
all Dovecot has to offer -- Please see dissappointed.
>
> I think I do pretty well at balancing what other people want for  
> Dovecot, what people (companies) pay for me to develop Dovecot to do  
> and what I myself want Dovecot to become. I guess in recent months  
> I've become worse at this since I've needed more time for school, but 
>  in general I don't think I've done too badly.
I never felt (or expressed) otherwise.
>
> Now, from you I've seen 3 mails within the whole Doveocot's life  
> time. If you had actually EVER contributed to Dovecot in any way in  
> its entire life time I might have replied differently. If you in no  
> way contribute to an open source project, you can't expect commercial 
>  support out of it without paying for it for someone. And there are  
> most likely a lot of companies that would accept your money if you  
> wanted it (including the one I work for).
Well, it might be of interest to you to know that I am on several
development teams and as such am responsible for several mailing
lists. On all of which I *frequntly* recommend switching to Dovecot
as a solution for troubles that administrators encounter with other
mail servers. As a matter of fact, I recently joined a team of
developers that will be producing an all-inclusive CMS. That will
provide far and beyond what any other CMS can offer to date. I
insisted that it track Dovecot closely, as email service will be
a part of it's offerings.
>
> I'm happy to fix this problem for you, the standard company fee being 
>  120 EUR/hour. Possibly even less if you can convince my supervisors  
> to accept it. Estimate for fixing it is about 6 hours (since I have  
> to install a system where I have quota). I don't think you can get  
> much better support than this elsewhere.
>
> Just don't misunderstand this as me not doing anything unless someone 
>  pays for it. For most of the last 4 years I've written Dovecot for  
> free without getting a single cent for it. I still do, but only as  
> long as I consider the changes to be important. If you have a  
> different opinion on the imporance, see the paragraph above.
>
Let me summarize here by letting you know that it should have been
obvious that I was experssing my disappointmnet. As I have grown
*very* pleased with Dovecot and all it has to offer. I *never*
expressed otherwise. Because of this, it should have been clear that
that I couldn't have been more greatful for the work (and quality)
you have provided thus far with Dovecot. I _never_ felt _you_
were responsible for my every whim. I was only concerned that given
the comments you made to another poster on this list. That I would
ultimately be forced to drop Dovecot as my (our) chosen mail server.

Best wishes.

-- 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p12 (SMP - 900x2) Tue Mar 7 19:37:23 PST 2006
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: PGP Digital Signature
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20060612/db9bfd24/attachment.pgp