Quoting Brian C Hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I know this is a little off-topic, and I know there is > has been some discussion touching on it. > > Which IMAP serever does everyone like? > > It sees that the one that comes with pine is fine according to > most. Is there a better one?
"it depends". Ask a better question, including what you want it for, and you'll get better answers. "I need a car. What kind should I get?" UW uses Version 7 mbox spools (as does qpopper). Not very efficient. At least *most* of the time, pop servers send and delete all the mail; IMAP users don't. This gives you a bigger penalty (removing message 135 from a 2000 message file means a LOT of copies). It also doesn't scale very well, for some definition of scale. While you can exceed 20k users, it gets painful. CYRUS imap scales much larger and doesn't require IMAP users be Unix users. Sendmail, Inc's and, IIRC, iPlanet's IMAP servers are based on Cyrus. I *know* Sendmail's IMAP server (commercial) can scale to several hundred thousand on a machine, depending on usage models (IP stacks being what they are, more than 15k concurrent users become problematic). 1 file/message. Deliver a message to 50 people, you have 1 file and 49 hard links. Nice when you have sales guys mailing PowerPoint to 200 people. Courier is young. It may turn out to be fine. It implements some of it's own alterations to the IMAP RFC. Exchange and Notes can serve IMAP with up to 10s, maybe 100's of concurrent users, if you're lucky. All for (gartner est) $30/month/user. "IMAP aware" is how one client described it. Not to be confused with IMAP compliant.
