[dovecot] Re: [bincimap] Re: Re: bincimap

[Ian R. Justman]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:

> >> It even recently included a POP server. What's the reasoning there?
> >Someone wanted it so it'd be easy to run both POP3 and IMAP servers
> >without having to configure them twice. I don't see any harm in it
> >anyway, it took only few hours to write, it's optional and doesn't take
> >much space in sources.
>
> Here's where I would say - there are hundreds of working POP3 servers
> around, both in closed and open source, so adding a POP3 server to the
> Dovecot project just introduces more lines of code where bugs may appear
> ;).

Here is what -I- would say:

I use mbox on all my servers which I have absolutely no intention of
changing despite the issues concerning file locking inherent in the whole
mbox format.  So please, --NO-- attempts to convince me to go to maildir.

My take is that if I am going to use an IMAP server, it would be VERY nice
if a POP3 server also came bundled with it.  Dovecot's having both IMAP
and POP3 servers is great because they will likely use the same
file-locking schemes (in fact, probably even share the same locking
settings).

That way if I inadvertently start up a POP3 session while I am connected
via IMAP, if they use identical locking mechanisms, I don't screw up my
mailboxes should I inadvertently tell my system that I want to delete the
messages from my mailbox.

Basically, if you open via IMAP using a server with a diffent locking
scheme while your hung POP3 session is still running AND you modify your
mailbox, you are screwed.  Especially if that mailstore is NFS-shared,
which is always a dicey proposition.

Additionally, the number of mbox POP3 servers which Do Not Suck(R) is
rather low right now.  Timo finally introduced an mbox IMAP server which
definitely Does Not Suck, notably it allows for multiple clients accessing
the same mbox mailstore, something previously only offered by Cyrus and
perhaps maildir ("perhaps" only because I do not use maildir).

Not to mention, quite frankly, most mbox POP3 implementations suck pretty
badly anyway. :P

--Ian.