From the digest:

On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:04 PM, dovecot-request@dovecot.org wrote:

other messages cut out…

Message: 9 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:03:58 +0200 From: martin f krafft madduck@madduck.net Subject: Re: [Dovecot] use of deliver from procmail advisable? To: dovecot@dovecot.org Message-ID: 20070814170358.GA17390@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

also sprach Kyle Wheeler kyle-dovecot@memoryhole.net
[2007.08.14.1833 +0200]:

...

...

I understand that dovecot's deliver does a little more than deliver:

It also understands the 'seive' filter language (an alternative to procmail).

I don't consider it an alternative to procmail because you cannot pass mail to external programmes, like spamassassin or vacation. Sure, sieve has its own vacation module, but I find that to be rather limited. See this thread:

http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-August/024686.html

...

...

What do you think will be less resource-heavy: calling deliver for every mail received *in addition to* procmail, or letting the IMAP server update the metadata on access?

Unless you're cutting it close to the limit on what your server can handle, that's probably the wrong question to ask. A better question is: which gives my users better performance?

Good point. The users, however, as far as I know, all use tools like offlineimap to synchronise in the background, so it hardly matters.

...

your users aren't paying attention. Dovecot will *seem* snappier if you do the indexing work on delivery rather than on access, even though it may spend more CPU cycles overall to do so.

Does anyone have hard facts on how much the server process loses if it encounters a folder with an index inconsistency?

-- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck

mulutlitithtrhreeaadededd s siigngnatatuurere

spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net