On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 02:00:20AM -0400, Henry Baragar wrote: > Hello all, > > This is going to be a long message that maybe should be placed on the > Life with Binc IMAP wiki.
I definately think so! [..snip excellent text..] > Given that the interface to qmail-pop3d is not likely going to change in > the near future, a design decision needs to be revisited for Binc IMAP, > namely: > - Should bincimapd's interface be changed to align it better with > qmail-pop3d; or, > - Should bincimapd's interface be left alone and the differences with > qmail-pop3d be better documented. > Its not clear to me which of these two alternatives is the better one. I'd like to slap checkvpw around, it shouldn't make assumptions about the program it's going to execute like that.. :\ Uniforming bincimapd with qmail-pop3d is a good thing<tm> though, regardless of reason. I do admit that I'm annoyed by the fact that bincimapd has to be changed because of a virtual user system.. It does say on vmailmgr.org: [..VMailMgr features:] A password checking interface between qmail-popup and qmail-pop3d which replaces the usual checkpassword, as well as an authentication module for Courier IMAP, that provide access to the virtual mailboxes by one of three methods: Since Binc isn't mentioned, it can't really be expected to work out of the box. A wrapper script would be acceptable w.r.t. compatibility IMHO. Maybe all of this will change with the new configuration in Binc 1.3? Andreas, what do you think? Uniforming with qmail-pop3d IS good, after all. Maybe the sole argument accepted by bincimapd 1.3 should be the maildir, with all other options set by the environment? (For 1.2, let people use Henry's three-line perl wrapper. Maybe even include it in bincimap's contrib/ if that's ok with Henry? :) //Peter
