[Dovecot] OT: best linux imap client for dovecot
Hi,
I'm a long term dovecot user, packager and believer, but on the other side of the wire I've been a mutt user for longer than I can think.
Which modern email client under Linux is working best with dovecot? I just did a grep on User-Agent:/X-Mailer: on my dovecot archive (which goes back to 2004) and found that the top ten are:
28% Thunderbird 25% Evolution 9% Apple Mail 9% Mutt 5% Mozilla 3% KMail 2% Outlook 2% SquirrelMail 1% Alpine 1% Mulberry ...
So it looks like most Linux people here like to use Thunderbird and Evolution.
This is not a my-email-client-is-better-than-your-email-client thread, I just want to know which client(s) make proper use of imap features for fast searches/copies/deletions etc.
Thanks!
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 17:45 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
Which modern email client under Linux is working best with dovecot? I just did a grep on User-Agent:/X-Mailer: on my dovecot archive (which goes back to 2004) and found that the top ten are:
28% Thunderbird 25% Evolution 9% Apple Mail
I wouldn't be surprised if >90% of Evolution and Apple mail mails came from me. :)
This is not a my-email-client-is-better-than-your-email-client thread, I just want to know which client(s) make proper use of imap features for fast searches/copies/deletions etc.
I think they all suck. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I might try to continue http://trojita.flaska.net/. Its design looks good, but unfortunately it's nowhere near being actually usable and its development seems dead.
Timo Sirainen wrote:
I think they all suck. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I might try to continue http://trojita.flaska.net/. Its design looks good, but unfortunately it's nowhere near being actually usable and its development seems dead.
See http://projects.flaska.net/projects/activity/trojita - looks like there's hope yet! Last revision posted ... yesterday!
-- Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 2010-02-18 23:50, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 17:45 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
Which modern email client under Linux is working best with dovecot? I just did a grep on User-Agent:/X-Mailer: on my dovecot archive (which goes back to 2004) and found that the top ten are:
28% Thunderbird 25% Evolution 9% Apple Mail
I wouldn't be surprised if >90% of Evolution and Apple mail mails came from me. :)
This is not a my-email-client-is-better-than-your-email-client thread, I just want to know which client(s) make proper use of imap features for fast searches/copies/deletions etc.
I think they all suck. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I might try to continue http://trojita.flaska.net/. Its design looks good, but unfortunately it's nowhere near being actually usable and its development seems dead.
That would be a great thing to do :) You could have total control over the IMAP world by getting out a *good* IMAP client ;) And since it's Qt, a lot of users (X11, OS X, Windows, soon Nokia smartphones?) could profit.
On the other hand, maybe all efforts should concentrate on Akonadi [1], which will do IMAP for KDE in the (near?) future... says a KDE user :)
Patrick.
[1] http://pim.kde.org/akonadi/
STAR Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. http://www.star-group.net/ Phone: +86 (21) 3462 7688 x 826 Fax: +86 (21) 3462 7779
PGP key E883A005 https://stshacom1.star-china.net/keys/patrick_nagel.asc Fingerprint: E09A D65E 855F B334 E5C3 5386 EF23 20FC E883 A005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuCLIIACgkQ7yMg/OiDoAUFBACeJ6IbFvKCIxwqX3/Jq9J4V+U2 fIAAoJRi9QuYxHwjOy0XmYcnqf5SO5fh =8HCp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2010-02-18 10:50 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I think they all suck. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I might try to continue http://trojita.flaska.net/. Its design looks good, but unfortunately it's nowhere near being actually usable and its development seems dead.
Hey Timo,
I was wondering if you might take just a few minutes - no need to go into great detail or anything unless you can do so off the top of your head and don't mind - and outline what you see as the biggest problems with all of these sucky IMAP clients, and what things might/could be done to make them 'suck less'...
Maybe this could be a new entry on your new blog? ;)
I'm interested in opening some bugs for Thunderbird for anything that seems to be doable/fixable without rewriting everything from scratch (which obviously isn't going to happen)...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 13:18 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
I was wondering if you might take just a few minutes - no need to go into great detail or anything unless you can do so off the top of your head and don't mind - and outline what you see as the biggest problems with all of these sucky IMAP clients, and what things might/could be done to make them 'suck less'...
Well, I haven't thought about it all that much in detail. Or, actually, I did write a how-to: http://imapwiki.org/ClientImplementation
Basically:
Online mode: Don't download all message headers at once at startup. If I open a mailbox, I'm seeing only about 20 messages on screen. That's all it needs to download. When I scroll the message list, download more as needed.
Just implement IMAP protocol correctly and efficiently and without pointless settings, such as TB's "server supports folders that have subfolders". The HOWTO is mainly about this.
Don't download message attachments when I open the mail.
When I actually am downloading a larger attachment or doing some other long running operation, don't block the UI or anything. Create a new IMAP connection if needed.
And in general the UI shouldn't hang and it shouldn't waste my bandwidth.
There are probably a lot of other things I can't think of right now.
On 24/02/2010 18:37, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 13:18 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
I was wondering if you might take just a few minutes - no need to go into great detail or anything unless you can do so off the top of your head and don't mind - and outline what you see as the biggest problems with all of these sucky IMAP clients, and what things might/could be done to make them 'suck less'...
Well, I haven't thought about it all that much in detail. Or, actually, I did write a how-to: http://imapwiki.org/ClientImplementation
Basically:
- Online mode: Don't download all message headers at once at startup. If I open a mailbox, I'm seeing only about 20 messages on screen. That's all it needs to download. When I scroll the message list, download more as needed.
Yeah, Take TB's annoying pause when you click into the INBOX where it declines to jump to the newest messages so you can at least read what you already downloaded, UNTIL it's checked for any new messages which arrived in the last few seconds... OE still remains better from that point of view...
On the Nokia N97 you can get Profimail and it's a pretty good example of how an internet connect client should probably behave (granted some of these optimisations change if you assume the server is in the same room as you on gigabit...)
Ed W
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
Basically:
- Online mode: Don't download all message headers at once at startup. If I open a mailbox, I'm seeing only about 20 messages on screen. That's all it needs to download. When I scroll the message list, download more as needed.
I see I am not the only one who finds the way TB does it odd, tosay the least.
- Don't download message attachments when I open the mail.
Yes! If I want to see the attachments, I will tell it when I amready. Otherwise, just mention they are there.
- When I actually am downloading a larger attachment or doing some other long running operation, don't block the UI or anything. Create a new IMAP connection if needed.
And have that new connection for this long download thingie.On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:37:52PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 13:18 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
I was wondering if you might take just a few minutes - no need to go into great detail or anything unless you can do so off the top of your head and don't mind - and outline what you see as the biggest problems with all of these sucky IMAP clients, and what things might/could be done to make them 'suck less'...
- Just implement IMAP protocol correctly and efficiently and without pointless settings, such as TB's "server supports folders that have subfolders". The HOWTO is mainly about this.
Like making "subscribed folders" be the same as "folders that are checked for new mail" instead of having "subscribe" exist but be pointless?
Jim
Jim Trigg, Lord High Everything Else O- /"
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
Hostmaster, Huie Kin family website X HELP CURE HTML MAIL
Verger, All Saints Church - Sharon Chapel / \
Quoting Jim Trigg jtrigg@spamcop.net:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:37:52PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
- Just implement IMAP protocol correctly and efficiently and without pointless settings, such as TB's "server supports folders that have subfolders". The HOWTO is mainly about this.
Like making "subscribed folders" be the same as "folders that are checked for new mail" instead of having "subscribe" exist but be pointless?
This doesn't make any sense, and is not the purpose of subscriptions.
Example: there to retrieve a deleted message.
- I have 100's of sent-mail mailboxes I don't want to be subscribed
to, because it is doubtful I will ever use them. These mailboxes are
unsubscribed because I don't want to see them in any mailbox listings
by default. - I do want to see my Trash mailbox, because I occasionally pop in
- However, I do *not* want my Trash mailbox to be polled for
new/unseen messages. That information is both worthless (I move
unseen messages into Trash all the time) and a waste of resources (my
Trash mailbox may have an extremely large number of messages contained
in it).
michael
On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Michael M. Slusarz wrote:
Quoting Jim Trigg jtrigg@spamcop.net:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:37:52PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
- Just implement IMAP protocol correctly and efficiently and
without pointless settings, such as TB's "server supports folders that have subfolders". The HOWTO is mainly about this.Like making "subscribed folders" be the same as "folders that are checked for new mail" instead of having "subscribe" exist but be pointless?
This doesn't make any sense, and is not the purpose of subscriptions.
Example: listings by default.
- I have 100's of sent-mail mailboxes I don't want to be subscribed
to, because it is doubtful I will ever use them. These mailboxes are
unsubscribed because I don't want to see them in any mailbox
This use of subscriptions is a terrible abuse of IMAP. Like most
terrible abuses, it's a-ok to choose for yourself if you're an
advanced user, but anyone who has done support for a broad user base
knows that a client should *NEVER* act like this as the default.
Subscriptions are brittle and non-portable and hiding mailboxes based
on them leads only to floods of "Where is all my mail you screwed up
my life!!!!" interactions.
-Brian
Example:
- I have 100's of sent-mail mailboxes I don't want to be subscribed to, because it is doubtful I will ever use them. These mailboxes are unsubscribed because I don't want to see them in any mailbox listings by default.
This use of subscriptions is a terrible abuse of IMAP. Like most terrible abuses, it's a-ok to choose for yourself if you're an advanced user, but anyone who has done support for a broad user base knows that a client should *NEVER* act like this as the default. Subscriptions are brittle and non-portable and hiding mailboxes based on them leads only to floods of "Where is all my mail you screwed up my life!!!!" interactions.
I'm genuinely confused by this come-back. Could you elaborate?
Why is having subscriptions (and, specifically, some folders to which you are not subscribed) a terrible abuse of IMAP? What is non-portable about subscriptions? The IMAP protocol supports them directly.
On 24.2.2010, at 22.08, WJCarpenter wrote:
This use of subscriptions is a terrible abuse of IMAP. Like most terrible abuses, it's a-ok to choose for yourself if you're an advanced user, but anyone who has done support for a broad user base knows that a client should *NEVER* act like this as the default. Subscriptions are brittle and non-portable and hiding mailboxes based on them leads only to floods of "Where is all my mail you screwed up my life!!!!" interactions.
I'm genuinely confused by this come-back. Could you elaborate?
Why is having subscriptions (and, specifically, some folders to which you are not subscribed) a terrible abuse of IMAP? What is non-portable about subscriptions? The IMAP protocol supports them directly.
I don't think it's abuse, but the I don't like the clients' UI for them. http://imapwiki.org/ClientImplementation/MailboxList#Subscriptions and the next chapter explains how I'd like them to work.
On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 24.2.2010, at 22.08, WJCarpenter wrote:
This use of subscriptions is a terrible abuse of IMAP. Like most
terrible abuses, it's a-ok to choose for yourself if you're an
advanced user, but anyone who has done support for a broad user
base knows that a client should *NEVER* act like this as the
default. Subscriptions are brittle and non-portable and hiding
mailboxes based on them leads only to floods of "Where is all my
mail you screwed up my life!!!!" interactions.I'm genuinely confused by this come-back. Could you elaborate?
Why is having subscriptions (and, specifically, some folders to
which you are not subscribed) a terrible abuse of IMAP? What is
non-portable about subscriptions? The IMAP protocol supports them
directly.I don't think it's abuse, but the I don't like the clients' UI for
them. http://imapwiki.org/ClientImplementation/MailboxList#Subscriptions and the next chapter explains how I'd like them to work.
Excellent thoughts.
On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:08 PM, WJCarpenter wrote:
Example:
- I have 100's of sent-mail mailboxes I don't want to be
subscribed to, because it is doubtful I will ever use them. These
mailboxes are unsubscribed because I don't want to see them in any
mailbox listings by default.This use of subscriptions is a terrible abuse of IMAP. Like most
terrible abuses, it's a-ok to choose for yourself if you're an
advanced user, but anyone who has done support for a broad user
base knows that a client should *NEVER* act like this as the
default. Subscriptions are brittle and non-portable and hiding
mailboxes based on them leads only to floods of "Where is all my
mail you screwed up my life!!!!" interactions.I'm genuinely confused by this come-back. Could you elaborate?
Why is having subscriptions (and, specifically, some folders to
which you are not subscribed) a terrible abuse of IMAP? What is non- portable about subscriptions? The IMAP protocol supports them
directly.
Subscriptions themselves aren't an abuse of IMAP, obviously, as they
are in the spec. A client that *by default* uses them to hide folders
is abusing them, for exactly the reasons I explained. They are non-
portable because:
The interaction that most (all?) clients poorly bake in between
subscriptions and the "IMAP root" setting means that if your various
clients are not configured identically, you'll see one set of folders
in one place and another set in another. This contributes to users
thinking mail has disappeared to creating mailboxes with the same name
at different paths. The latter is annoying to begin with, but becomes
especially bad when yet another client shows the user both of two same- name folders and *resolves them in the interface to the same
directory*, so the user thinks they are simple duplicates and deletes
one.Different clients interpolate names differently, such that even if
two clients are identically configured when it comes to the "IMAP
root" and namespaces, they map the subscription to inconsistent paths
(either on the backend or the in the interface). This is especially
true of moving between Thunderbird and certain versions of Outlook and
Vista Mail.
Subscriptions are handy if they're treated more or less like
bookmarks, or if you only ever use one client, and the client doesn't
do anything stupid with them. I can't speak for others, but in a large
university environment that rules out most users with most clients.
-Brian
Subscriptions themselves aren't an abuse of IMAP, obviously, as they are in the spec. A client that *by default* uses them to hide folders is abusing them, for exactly the reasons I explained. They are non-portable because:
I agree 100% that hiding folders by default is bad, but I've never seen a client do that. I have seen many clients hide folders that are not subscribed, and that's exactly the behavior that I want. (If you don't have a subscription list, you see everything. If you have a subscription list, that's what you see.)
The interaction that most (all?) clients poorly bake in between subscriptions and the "IMAP root" setting means that if your various clients are not configured identically, you'll see one set of folders in one place and another set in another. This contributes to users thinking mail has disappeared to creating mailboxes with the same name at different paths. The latter is annoying to begin with, but becomes especially bad when yet another client shows the user both of two same-name folders and *resolves them in the interface to the same directory*, so the user thinks they are simple duplicates and deletes one.
Different clients interpolate names differently, such that even if two clients are identically configured when it comes to the "IMAP root" and namespaces, they map the subscription to inconsistent paths (either on the backend or the in the interface). This is especially true of moving between Thunderbird and certain versions of Outlook and Vista Mail.
Are these problems with subscriptions or folder handling in general? In
every client I've looked at, a subscription is just a visibility marker
for a folder. When the folder is visible, it shows up in whatever place
the client would put it if there were no such thing as subscriptions.
Are you saying there are clients that make these UI problem just for
subscribed folders?
Or are you maybe talking about subscriptions to public/shared folders?
If yes, never mind. I don't have any experience with client behavior
for those.
On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:48 PM, WJCarpenter wrote:
Subscriptions themselves aren't an abuse of IMAP, obviously, as
they are in the spec. A client that *by default* uses them to hide
folders is abusing them, for exactly the reasons I explained. They
are non-portable because:I agree 100% that hiding folders by default is bad, but I've never
seen a client do that. I have seen many clients hide folders that
are not subscribed, and that's exactly the behavior that I want.
(If you don't have a subscription list, you see everything. If you
have a subscription list, that's what you see.)
Right, I understand that's the behavior that you want, which is your
choice. I'm arguing (from years of bitter experience) that for the
average user, it leads to a lot more problems than it solves.
Are these problems with subscriptions or folder handling in
general? In every client I've looked at, a subscription is just a
visibility marker for a folder. When the folder is visible, it
shows up in whatever place the client would put it if there were no
such thing as subscriptions. Are you saying there are clients that
make these UI problem just for subscribed folders?
Most of these clients are bad at folder handling in general, but these
issues are specifically with subscriptions. Using it as a visibility
marker is great if you can count on consistent interpretation of the
contents of the subscription file, but if you are moving between
different clients (which almost everybody does: one or two at home,
one at work, webmail, mobile device...) you can't count on that.
So... some clients prepend the "IMAP root" to LSUB command paths, some
don't. Some prepend the "IMAP root" to return values from LSUB, some
don't. Some further have inconsistent (both internally and vis a vis
other contents) models for how they further interpret these in light
of NAMESPACE values. Etc. Etc.
It's just a mess.
-Brian
Hello, Axel. You wrote 18 февраля 2010 г., 18:45:21:
This is not a my-email-client-is-better-than-your-email-client thread, I just want to know which client(s) make proper use of imap features for fast searches/copies/deletions etc. IMHO, all existing clients suck, but not only due to IMAP4 [mis]using, but because UI is terrible. For example, I don't lnow any client with proper, accurate text-only quoting (with '> ' marks). Some clients forget to spilt long lines, some don't add '> ' when I split quote line by hands, some don't remove '> ' automagically when lines in quote are merged (by deleting CR/NL on previous line), and things become even mnore horrible whrn here are many quotes of different level. I'm not mention clients, which have top-quoting-only setting or doesn't have templates for editor (no, a signature file IS NOT A TEMPLATE!)
Threading, working with mailing lists (with all these List-XXXheaders which are standard now), using diffferent "From" names and e-mails for different folders (and, yes, different templates), differnet templates for different replies, good filters (Thunderbird's filters creation UI is bad, IMHO), flexible but esy-to-setup-default purging rules, etc, etc, etc -- all these features are missing or implemented horribly wrong in most clients (I don't claim, that every client has every feature from this list implemented wrong, but most of clients has 1/2 or more of this list absent or unusable).
There is one client which have not-so-bad-UI (I can not use EMACS GNU, but I think everything COULD BE DONE in EMACS, so, may be THERE ARE TWO clients): Ritlab's "The Bat!". But it works with IMAP terribly wrong, works only on Windows, costs money, and is somwhere buggy :(
-- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov lev@serebryakov.spb.ru
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi Lev,
On 2010-02-22 16:04, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
This is not a my-email-client-is-better-than-your-email-client thread, I just want to know which client(s) make proper use of imap features for fast searches/copies/deletions etc. IMHO, all existing clients suck, but not only due to IMAP4 [mis]using, but because UI is terrible.
I like KMail's UI a lot, but its IMAP support is terrible. Hoping that will change with KMail 2.
For example, I don't lnow any client with proper, accurate text-only quoting (with '> ' marks). Some clients forget to spilt long lines, some don't add '> ' when I split quote line by hands, some don't remove '> ' automagically when lines in quote are merged (by deleting CR/NL on previous line), and things become even mnore horrible whrn here are many quotes of different level. I'm not mention clients, which have top-quoting-only setting or doesn't have templates for editor (no, a signature file IS NOT A TEMPLATE!)
I don't know so much about quoting, I think TB gets it right, doesn't it? Also, on non-line-broken mails, you can press CTRL-R (Rewrap) and the mail gets proper line breaks. KMail admittedly has some weirdnesses there, at least in recent versions.
Threading, working with mailing lists (with all these List-XXXheaders which are standard now), using diffferent "From" names and e-mails for different folders (and, yes, different templates), differnet templates for different replies, good filters (Thunderbird's filters creation UI is bad, IMHO), flexible but esy-to-setup-default purging rules, etc, etc, etc -- all these features are missing or implemented horribly wrong in most clients (I don't claim, that every client has every feature from this list implemented wrong, but most of clients has 1/2 or more of this list absent or unusable).
I think KMail gets all of them right, although I don't use the filter UI, since I filter with sieve rules on the server.
Patrick.
STAR Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. http://www.star-group.net/ Phone: +86 (21) 3462 7688 x 826 Fax: +86 (21) 3462 7779
PGP key E883A005 https://stshacom1.star-china.net/keys/patrick_nagel.asc Fingerprint: E09A D65E 855F B334 E5C3 5386 EF23 20FC E883 A005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuCQsEACgkQ7yMg/OiDoAUU3wCgimLYBXZnf/zOcfY/YNXUnqbo gDgAn39AML0SA4vKQ+5UUUQkfeCFrnOW =5jtD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi,
On Mon, 22.02.2010 at 11:04:23 +0300, Lev Serebryakov lev@serebryakov.spb.ru wrote:
because UI is terrible. For example, I don't lnow any client with proper, accurate text-only quoting (with '> ' marks). Some clients forget to spilt long lines, some don't add '> ' when I split quote line by hands, some don't remove '> ' automagically when lines in quote are merged (by deleting CR/NL on previous line),
try mutt together with 'vim'. 'vim' is smart enough to do the quoting mostly right, and mutt is generally a decent MUA, imho, although also lacking in some areas ("sucks less").
You all sound as if there should be an IMAP client library that does IMAP right, and that all MUAs can make use of. Maybe someone can intrigue some of the projects out there to collaborate.
Kind regards, --Toni++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Toni Mueller wrote:
You all sound as if there should be an IMAP client library that does IMAP right, and that all MUAs can make use of. Maybe someone can intrigue some of the projects out there to collaborate.
You mean like the c-client library of UW-Imap, the ultimate reference implementation of IMAP ;-)
http://www.washington.edu/imap/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UW_IMAP
"The UW IMAP server is the reference server implementation of the IMAP protocol. Unlike other server implementations, it is designed to be aggressively compatible with existing legacy mail stores and systems, and to be "plug-and-play" installable without requiring any site-specific configuration."
Regards,
Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBS4PWzL+Vh58GPL/cAQLrDQf+L9HYp+YUGTK5P9+AzhxrLJLsdxTSbNrF bt7eNFtfHJtWv16DtIP7JtJC//gcI9SfF1kNx05/PFTRe+1UQcoa6PbcoGYyRkxv jiJI7mWNfIIrzQ6UykOP7LJye0zmxxeBf5Y+3+YIbt/Fmh/3h7W5E1w5S8+f8BMG eQ/WAuplcc9id+SQwLvi8a9P+okxBiHXGuogwU7m83ZKlAgWtWQ7GqiqeWH79WcO 5l70l3snoi1SN7zF07k5xvG/8JEIJoM9VPfJNtr3CsuXfI4xuu3/kzE25uxkBqL/ ed4aoXyrijlj+5hTDMACcKo0KDt2MPZ7lkk5g/qLr3FcxXx8Qh2agg== =h+vx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Ter, 2010-02-23 at 14:23 +0100, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
You mean like the c-client library of UW-Imap, the ultimate reference implementation of IMAP ;-)
http://www.washington.edu/imap/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UW_IMAP
"The UW IMAP server is the reference server implementation of the IMAP protocol. Unlike other server implementations, it is designed to be aggressively compatible with existing legacy mail stores and systems, and to be "plug-and-play" installable without requiring any site-specific configuration."
So compatible that it sucks hard.
-- Jose Celestino SAPO.pt::Systems http://www.sapo.pt
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." -- Dr. House
participants (15)
-
Axel Thimm
-
Brian Hayden
-
Charles Marcus
-
Daniel L. Miller
-
Ed W
-
Jim Trigg
-
Jose Celestino
-
Lev Serebryakov
-
Mauricio Tavares
-
Michael M. Slusarz
-
Patrick Nagel
-
Steffen Kaiser
-
Timo Sirainen
-
Toni Mueller
-
WJCarpenter