On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote (quoting me):
> > http://www.imap.org/papers/imap.vs.pop.brief.html
>
> And what is your *own* opinion? I prefer POP because IMAP makes
> users leave mail on server, amongst others.
That is one of the reasons why I prefer IMAP. I don't like leaving my
email lying on the various machines that I check my email from. There
are several other reasons, but are irrelevent to this discussion,
which follows:
> Uh. You are confused. Are you providing pop+imap or shell
> services?
Both. And we have people that run Netscape on the mail server.
> FreeBSD's FFS does slow down when a Maildir gets *really* big.
That's what we have. What is *really big* ? One of the aforementioned
people had a 200MB mbox (which almost constantly crashed Netscape, and
made Pine loop forever). I'm guessing that that won't be a problem if
converted to maildir. I also read Mark Delany's post that dismisses my
fears of scalability of the maildir format.
Ideally, I would like mail to still be delivered to /var/mail/ in
whatever format, as long as I can get POP/IMAP servers to support it.
Then users can read their email from NFS mounted spools when on our
network, and via IMAP from anywhere else.
I guess if I use the maildir format, setting up redundant mailservers
becomes easy. Here's my understanding:
* equal priority MX records for two servers.
* both servers running qmail, mail stored in an NFS mounted spool dir.
* One or more servers that run IMAP/POP services that people can
connect to (perhaps through one alias - mail.domain)
Have I got it right?
--
Gopi Sundaram
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
