Quoting Kenneth Porter <shiva@sewingwitch.com>:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:07 AM -0600 Eric Rostetter <rostetter@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!