Hello,
I've heard of both and I already tested and installed both, but I'm not sure which one is better, since both just seem to work and I can't see a difference, except from the point how it's set up and configured. Where are the drawbacks of each one, where are the benefits? I also tested cyrus before, but cyrus is not working well with maildirs. I'm not that into detail of both projects, maybe you can explain a bit. Thanks in advance for every answer!
Regards Marten
At Sun, 16 May 2004 00:58:27 +0200, Marten Lehmann lehmann@cnm.de wrote:
I've heard of both and I already tested and installed both, but I'm not sure which one is better, since both just seem to work and I can't see a difference, except from the point how it's set up and configured. Where are the drawbacks of each one, where are the benefits? I also tested cyrus before, but cyrus is not working well with maildirs. I'm not that into detail of both projects, maybe you can explain a bit. Thanks in advance for every answer!
I believe Dovecot is much faster than Courier. Dovecot's index caching is very smart and works well even on huge mailboxes.
-- fuyuki
I believe Dovecot is much faster than Courier. Dovecot's index caching is very smart and works well even on huge mailboxes.
How many people are actively working on both projects? Who is using dovecot? In which environments? Has someone moved from Courier-Imap to Dovecot? Which of both has the smaller footprint (e.g. memory usage)?
Regards Marten
At Sun, 16 May 2004 05:36:45 +0200, Marten Lehmann lehmann@cnm.de wrote:
How many people are actively working on both projects? Who is using dovecot? In which environments? Has someone moved from Courier-Imap to Dovecot? Which of both has the smaller footprint (e.g. memory usage)?
I've experienced at least four imap daemons on FreeBSD; UW's, Cyrus, Courier and (of course) Dovecot. Forget about the first one. Cyrus's would be most popular and is actually quite fast, but I don't like some of its behavior details. Courier-IMAP is works well on Maildir except that it is fairly slow since it never caches mail indexes. (Is it still true for recent versions?)
My current choice is Dovecot. It works just fine more than a year. It is so fast and eats little memory.
In short, you should read a blurb by the author himself. It's not a bubble.
-- fuyuki
Hi,
Dovecot performs very well if you have a very huge mailbox. I have a mailbox with about 30 folders with ~ 8000 messages per folder (with 200 new messages each day)
Running Courier-Imap, you couldn't access the mailbox, it was so slooooww. Courier also segfaulted very often.
After switching to dovecot, everything runs fine. No crash and its FAST.
And dovecot uses less memory/cpu. It runs also fast enough for my old 486 with 66mhz and 64mb ram.
-- Adrian
Adrian Ulrich wrote:
After switching to dovecot, everything runs fine. No crash and its FAST.
Yep, I also changed some courier-imaps to dovecot, since courier have some mystic problems with outlook 2003.
No any problem with dovecot. Only thing that is missing is maildir++ quota, hope it is soon implemented.
Anyway, dovecot supports easily vpopmail+qmail combination that I use on most mail servers.
-- Eero
Adrian Ulrich dovecot@blinkenlights.ch writes:
Dovecot performs very well if you have a very huge mailbox. I have a mailbox with about 30 folders with ~ 8000 messages per folder (with 200 new messages each day)
Running Courier-Imap, you couldn't access the mailbox, it was so slooooww. Courier also segfaulted very often.
While I have hardly used large mailboxes with Courier, I've _never_ seen it segfault.
Dovecot is faster, but lacks some features that Courier offers, the NAMESPACE extension, for instance.
-- Matthias Andree
Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95
participants (5)
-
Adrian Ulrich
-
Kimura Fuyuki
-
Marten Lehmann
-
Matthias Andree
-
security officer