On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com>wrote:
> Nick Edwards put forth on 9/10/2010 2:32 AM: > > > Before the fans cry foul of why not Dovecot. we have followed the list > > thread of what may be a problem with Dovecot its author has identified > but > > decided is a "tuff luck" case, he indicates serious corruption risks with > > index and caches using multiple delivery servers, and only a few people > have > > asked for workaround which the author feels it is not enough to warrant a > > safe workaround, so rather than use a bit of software that its author > says > > can produce unreliability, we think it is best to look elsewhere. > > Please note, we are silent lurkers, we know some of you are on both > lists, > > and aware of the threads I speak of, so are not interested in your POV in > > for's or against's or what they have said, only recommendations on > > alternative daemons. > > You've misunderstood the ongoing discussion, which is related ONLY to > <trolling snipped> > You're offering POP only, so simply don't configure LDA in dovecot.conf. > Comprehension problems? What part of dovecot is EXCLUDED did you not understand? You offered nothing to this thread given you are a dovecot user. please do not waste my time again > > > Another quick question before I depart for work, I understand also (from > > that other lists thread) that postfix does not support maildir++ > > Maildir++ adds only two features to maildir: > > wrong it adds more than what you claim it doe,s you are also not authoritative on postfix and have been chipped for giving wrong information before, in fact only a couple weeks ago by WV, so you are a person on my "dont bother with" list., sorry, but thats it, life's too short to spend time on guessers.
