Dear dovecotters:
I'm becoming interested in dovecot as a replacement for UW-IMAPD. Any project that claims it's the "postfix of ____ servers" deserves a looksee.
If indeed I were to going to switch at some point, I'd need to replace the UW POP3 server (which is a part of the UW package). I would prefer one that actually used the dovecot IMAP server instead of going to the filesystem directly.
Question 1: Anyone know of such a POP3 daemon that connects to the IMAP server.
Question 2: If the answer to Q1 is "no", would anyone be interested in such a package?
Yours truly,
Paul C. Bryan email@pbryan.net
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 16:59, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Dear dovecotters:
I'm becoming interested in dovecot as a replacement for UW-IMAPD. Any project that claims it's the "postfix of ____ servers" deserves a looksee.
If indeed I were to going to switch at some point, I'd need to replace the UW POP3 server (which is a part of the UW package). I would prefer one that actually used the dovecot IMAP server instead of going to the filesystem directly.
Question 1: Anyone know of such a POP3 daemon that connects to the IMAP server.
not aware of one, no.
Question 2: If the answer to Q1 is "no", would anyone be interested in such a package?
I think it would be a good idea to duplicate the functionality of uw-'s imap - though my general view is pop3 should be beaten profusely :)
-sv
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 23:59, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
If indeed I were to going to switch at some point, I'd need to replace the UW POP3 server (which is a part of the UW package). I would prefer one that actually used the dovecot IMAP server instead of going to the filesystem directly.
Why? Smaller chance of screwups if they don't have compatible file locking, or making authentication configuration easier? I don't think either is much of a problem though.
I've been thinking of making a Dovecot POP3 daemon as well. POP3 protocol is so simple that it doesn't take many hours to implement it, especially because I've tried to keep the IMAP protocol isolated from the actual functionality (I didn't fully succeed in it, but well enough). Anyway, this probably won't come that soon, IMAP part still needs much to do.
If you really need mbox POP3 server, I'd suggest popa3d.
"Paul" == Paul C Bryan email@pbryan.net writes:
Paul> I'd need to replace the UW POP3 server ... Paul> I would prefer one that actually used the dovecot IMAP server ...
Paul> Anyone know of such a POP3 daemon that connects to the IMAP server.
Doesn't the UW pops3 server do that? I believe it at least used to use the imap server as a backend. (Though it may have done so by evec(2)ing imapd(8) rather than via tcp; does dovecot support that method of imap access?)
Other that that, I'd suggest a search on freshmeat....
-JimC
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 00:47, James H. Cloos Jr. wrote:
Paul> Anyone know of such a POP3 daemon that connects to the IMAP server.
Doesn't the UW pops3 server do that? I believe it at least used to use the imap server as a backend. (Though it may have done so by evec(2)ing imapd(8) rather than via tcp; does dovecot support that method of imap access?)
Yes, Dovecot's imap process talks to stdin/stdout. All configuration is read from environment variables, mostly it needs just USER and maybe MAIL if it can't figure that out itself.
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Why? Smaller chance of screwups if they don't have compatible file locking, or making authentication configuration easier? I don't think either is much of a problem though.
It makes sense to leave authentication, authorization, mailbox handling to one reliable program. Hopefully, that can be the IMAP daemon.
A POP3 gateway would need only pass along the user's credentials to the IMAP server, and have no concern about mailbox format or locations, and not worry about file locking or implementing any concurrency mechanisms.
Thoughts?
Paul C. Bryan email@pbryan.net
participants (4)
-
James H. Cloos Jr.
-
Paul C. Bryan
-
seth vidal
-
Timo Sirainen