Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 22:46 +0100, mouss wrote:
Craig White wrote:
well, the opportune time to switch is probably when you are starting to
set up a new mail server.
Dovecot is mostly featureless POP3/IMAP
Come on. is it holy war time again? should I shoot over cyrus software
now or should we keep this list clean? If you like cryus software, I am
happy for you. If you've done a an serious/objective comparative study,
put it a on a web page (and ask for comments). Debating this here is not
constructive nor fair.
----
why is it not constructive?
because expereience shows that such debates should be conducted offlist,
quietly and with arguments. Otherwise, proponents of each side jump on
the wagon at every opportunity to reply to what they feel is an attack
against their "baby". you know the story, so I won't annoy you by
repeating it.
anyway, for it to be constructive, it should start on the right track.
calling dovecot featureless and listing features that are actually
supported by dovecot isn't a good start :)
Aren't dovecot and cyrus-imapd the only
pop3/imap servers bundled with CentOS? Would not users of CentOS benefit
from the discussion?
courier is another choice.
To be honest, I haven't looked at dovecot in quite some time...I made
the switch from uw-imapd to cyrus-imapd on about 8 servers several years
ago, finding that dovecot was pretty much like uw-imapd (but with a
maildir implementation). It's likely they've added some features since I
last considered it.
----
Cyrus-imapd has built-in...
- quota
- automatic folder, subscription, sieve scripts
- sieve instead of procmail
- automatic actions such as purging folders, search indexing on schedule
- delayed expunge
- shared mailboxes (ACL based)
- public mailboxes
- idled support
- support for virtual users
(no need to have uses with shell/users folders)
- easy integration with LDAP
- separate directory for mail store (not in users folders)
The theory that I used to select cyrus-imapd is/was the idea that if
e-mail is the power application that everyone needs/uses, why not give
it the maximum performance/features?
I've been told this a lot of times, ... about MS Exchange ;-p but this
list is about CentOS, so I'll stop here.
----
That's an interesting subject. I have a friend who is very pro-Macintosh
and told me that he was planning on buying OSX Server and running all
the various services off it (including mail server, etc.).
I listed out my typical plan, using either RHEL or CentOS, postfix,
horde and a lot of other packages (obviously cyrus-imapd), which I could
list here.
I actually recommended to this friend that he consider Microsoft SBS
server and at least use it as a base for comparison (cost/features)
because regardless of how you and I might feel about Microsoft Exchange
server, it is a viable option if not the standard for small businesses.
I wouldn't say it's the standard. I'd say that every business should
select the solution that they can afford, not only in terms of pricing
but also in terms of costs of maintenance and the availability of people
who know what to do.
I created this wiki page for the discussion of Exchange Server
alternatives...
http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Exchange_Server_Alternatives
nice. thanks for the pointer.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
