On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Ivan Baldo wrote: >Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: >>This goes for everyone who feels they have something to share about their >>experience with Binc. Both good and bad experience is welcome; share your >>testimonials. > Ok, please take this as a constructive criticism.
Great! > We installed Courier IMAP 2.2.0-1.8.0 and Binc IMAP 1.2.3-1 and >compared them. > There are a lot of good things about Binc IMAP but let me talk only >about the not so good ones ok? > We had problems with an account which had big emails and Binc was >terminating abnormally because it consumed too much memory, we asked on >this list and have been told that Binc loaded all the message in memory >for processing; we think this is bad, we don't like arbitrary limits >like that, and doesn't talk very well about Binc's maturity and good >technology/design. This was fixed, so if you use 1.2.6 you will see that Binc uses very little memory now. The problem with loading messages into memory was solved, so messages are now streamed in small chunks. This also had a positive impact on performance. I agree this was a very bad design choice. > I saw a problem with Binc and Mozilla junk mail controls, asked on >this list and I have been told that Binc doesn't support custom flags or >attributes or tags or something like that. Yup, it doesn't. It will definitely go into 1.3, though. It's an easy change, but since it's a new feature it will not go into 1.2. > Another thing that I noticed, is that with Mozilla Binc is slower >than Courier, don't ask me why; with Outlook, Outlook Express and >Evolution is unoticeable, could be a bug in Mozilla though. This is interesting. But it does motivate a benchmark between the different servers out there. We should have a chart showing memory usage and speed. > So I am more biased towards Courier IMAP right now, though we still >have not taken the final decision about what IMAP server to use. > I reiterate: please, take this as observations and maybe as a wish >list for things to fix/add. > I liked the way Binc integrates with QMail, it was really easy to >install and adapt to our custom environment, for Courier I had to modify >the C++ source of an authentication module to make it work as we want. > Thanks very much for Binc IMAP!!! Sounds like what I was fiddling with also, a while ago. :-/ I'm quite aware that Binc IMAP 1.2 can not suit everyone's needs. But what I wish for us to strive for is that 1.2 will be rock solid for those it does suit. I am hoping that 1.4 will suit mostly everyone's needs, as long as the authentication and mailbox formats are suited. And, that 1.4 will not have a hundred messages with "corrupt index" in the logs. It'll be rock solid, too :-). Andy - will start benchmarking -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | "It is better not to do something http://www.bincimap.org/ | than to do it poorly."
