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"? What server are you comparing it to? And if another server is more stable, what would motivate us to switch back to Dovecot once it achieves comparable stability?
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.)
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.
I'd guess that Timo's designation of 1.0 as "alpha" is what keeps Fedora from updating to it.