Kai Hendry <hen...@dabase.com> wrote:
Whilst trying to come up with a minimal configuration for Dovecot: http://dabase.com/blog/Minimal_Dovecot/
I think your characterization of the complexity of dovecot configuration by simply counting configuration lines to get it working is off base. It's conceivable to have all the default values work for you and only specify those that differ from defaults (or configure your system to conform to defaults if you want to place the proverbial cart before the horse), but that doesn't make it less complex -- it just hides it. (See doveconf -a if you want to see what you're shorthanding). If you want minimal configuration fuss, you can try uw-imapd. Not a lot of knobs to twist on that thing, but you'll have to accept all its limitations as well. A well chosen set of defaults that works for most people is a good design decision, but I've seen plenty of different and oddball layouts (including the sneakernet post preceding this one) that requires a lot of flexibility, which necessarily requires a lot of configuration to express them. The sample configuration is verbose because it doubles as documentation: you can use it as a starting point and remove the parts you don't need, or start from the documentation and move forward. I agree, though, that the documentation needs an editorial overhaul -- it's a little bewildering to find what you need along with the contextual information.
I noticed the configuration syntax is a bit admin unfriendly. It's easy to get an infamous Error code 89. Is there any back story to the grammar or language this configuration is in?
It appears to me to have grown organically, and maybe will need pruning some day. Joseph Tam <jtam.h...@gmail.com>
