On 17 Feb 2003, Timo Sirainen wrote: >On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 08:28, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: >> I wonder what the motives for the author of Dovecot IMAP was when he >> started his project. >Lack of securely written code in other servers, although Courier did >prove to be quite secure after all.
Binc IMAP's approaches are to use a secure programming language with secure well-known contructs, and with an as-simple-as-possible design, making it very easy for everyone to grasp how the server works. This will also help the community find and fix bugs. >> I wouldn't want to comment on Dovecot's design, since I'm no fan of >> trolling. >I don't think commenting is trolling, as long as there's truth in it, or >at least honest opinions. I agree to this, by all means, so let's keep our arguments exact and correct. >> It even recently included a POP server. What's the reasoning there? >Someone wanted it so it'd be easy to run both POP3 and IMAP servers >without having to configure them twice. I don't see any harm in it >anyway, it took only few hours to write, it's optional and doesn't take >much space in sources. Here's where I would say - there are hundreds of working POP3 servers around, both in closed and open source, so adding a POP3 server to the Dovecot project just introduces more lines of code where bugs may appear ;). Courier turned out to become a complete MUA after bundling projects onto projects. I'm hoping that Binc IMAP can be a contrast to this. Donald Knuth said in a seminar that I attended that the best way to keep a program free from bugs it to complete it. Finish off the project, work on fixing bugs. That's Binc IMAP's philosophy. Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | Nil desperandum
