On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote: >After printing out the 54-page install guide for Courier, I went looking >for a simpler IMAP implementation...
The server need not be simple for the installation guide to be so. ;) But yes, Binc IMAP is a simpler server. I hope that we will always have a as-simple installation procedure as we have today. >Does anyone have any thoughts on the relative merits of BincImap versus >the IMAP server included with Redhat 8 and 9 (which I guess is basically >the UW server, though they don't seem to like to call it that)? The >Redhat server seems pretty straightforward to set up too. Has anyone >compared them in practice? What you will notice is that Binc IMAP is slightly slower than Courier. It is also in an earlier stage of development, and there will therefore at this stage be more bugs in this server than there are in Courier. For this reason, Binc IMAP is not yet recommended in production environments. uw-imap supports only mbox. Binc IMAP currently supports only Maildir. So one is not a replacement for the other as it is today. In the future, Binc IMAP might be the server that has support for most mailbox formats and extensions, by providing a very handy API for those who wish to write their own backends. But not today. I know of no official comparisons out there that involve Binc IMAP, but I don't think they would be of much use either because of the state of Binc IMAP. Ongoing work is likely to have impact on both performance, documentation, the installation procedure and on the set of features supported. Good luck on your choice of server! Andy :-) -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | Nil desperandum
