You know, I don't know if I agree with all the objections over this person's request. I actually have a similar setup where Fetchmail is used to retrieve messages from a remote mailbox for injection into a Cyrus setup, primarily because of quota requirements on the far end. Yes, modern MUA's offer the ability to store messages locally, but what if you have that MUA installed in several computers in different locations? Moving to 'local folders' in that case isn't helpful. And yes, you could setup two accounts - one on the main server and one to your cyrus setup - and move messages manually, but then why not fetchmail to the cyrus setup directly too? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg A. Woods" <woods-cyrus@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Cyrus User's Mailing List" <info-cyrus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Exec'ing a script from Cyrus when imapd has a client > At Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:43:41 -0700 (PDT), David Lang > <david.lang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Subject: Re: Exec'ing a script from Cyrus when imapd has a client >> >> there can be cases where you are providing mail services for several >> people, or >> have multiple machines you use yourself where having an IMAP server is >> worthwhile. > > Neither of those things make any real sense whatsoever. They certainly > don't define any clear requirements that make sense in this context. > > Every modern and useful IMAP-capable MUA can collect e-mail from any > combination of many IMAP servers anywhere and everywhere all at once. > > If "fetchmail" can fetch the mail from an IMAP server, then so can any > MUA. > > Just get rid of all the unnecessary complexity in the middle and just > use the MUA for what it's designed to be used for! > > > >> now, it's unusual to use something like this without having a full MTA, >> but it's >> not unheard of. > > It's not unusual for people to create all kinds of crazy complicated > setups that have no real purpose, in every domain in life. > > I'm sure I make my own life more complicated than it needs to be in some > ways. > > However things do not _need_ to be made more complicated than necessary, > > Here the OP's question provides a perfect clue showing that something is > far more complicated than it needs to be because we see that it will > even have to get more complex (and even less robust) before it begins to > work the way it would actually work without any of this unnecessary > complexity in the middle in the first place. > > -- > Greg A. Woods > > +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack > <woods@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Planix, Inc. <woods@xxxxxxxxxx> Secrets of the Weird > <woods@xxxxxxxxx> > ---- > Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ > Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki > List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html > ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
