Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Dec 17, 2007 4:03 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Matt LaPlante [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:18 PM > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > > Cc: Andrew Falanga; Rob; FreeBSD Questions > > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > > > > > > It's a chicken and egg problem. > > > > > > There's nothing wrong with writing an extremely strict standard. > > > The issue is the implementation. > > > > > > If your server implementation is so strict that most clients have > > > difficulty, then users will find something else and your standard > > > will end up on the dustbin. > > > > > > It's better to start out with a strict standard and a forgiving > > > server implementation, then as it falls into mainstream use, work > > > with the client developers to correct their stuff. > > > > You've effectively described dovecot here. > > No, I haven't. > > > Its codebase is perhaps > > designed to be very strict, however the same codebase also includes > > configurable 'workarounds' (enabled by default in many distros) for > > clients that are not up to spec. They're trivial to toggle and well > > documented. > > > > If you download and compile dovecot then is the default config template > that is shipped with it enable the workarounds? No. The excuse that > "enabled by default in many distros" is merely an excuse. Nobody who > is serious about building a server for a lot of clients is going to > be using some precompiled version, they are going to compile from > source so that if a security hole is discovered they can patch it > immediately. They're also going to actually *look* at the configuration and tailor it. What kind of fool goes to the trouble of building his own software without also customizing the configuration to his specifications? > > IF the switches DISABLED the "lax" behavior, and the defaults in the config > templates were to not have the switches triggered, then it would meet the > definition of a forgiving server implementation. But it doesen't even > go that far. > > > So, this meets both criteria that it will "just work" with clients > > now, and the clients themselves could theoretically (good luck with > > Outlook) fix their code in the future. > > Outlook works just fine in IMAP mode with uw-imap, both regular Outlook > and Outlook Express. > I never said it doesn't. Dovecot works fine with Outlook and Outlook Express too (both IMAP and POP3). Imagine that, IMAP servers that successfully service IMAP clients. > > As far as I'm concerned, it's > > a fairly ideal environment, > > It is good you spell out that this is your personal ideal. > > > and I'm glad the developer has gone to the > > trouble to 1) stick to standards in the core code and 2) made a point > > of documenting and providing workarounds for buggy clients. > > > > It is a lot of extra work to encapsulate all the "alleged bugs" > in separate code so you can provide "switches" for stick-up-their > -asses-admins to flip. That is work that should have gone into > speeding up the code. It is utterly wasted effort unless your goal > is to allow admins who have penis envy the ability to jerk people around > for their choice of e-mail clients. > > It isn't the mailserver administrator's business if Joe Idiot User > who doesen't know any better chooses to use Outlook 97 as an IMAP > client, to deny Joe Idiot access to the mailserver. The admin does > not need to be playing silly games like this, setting up his server > so that only some clients can work with it, others can't, then telling > people their software of choice has bugs and fuck you, don't use it. > > Programmers jobs are to makes things work for users. If Mickeysoft's > programmers cannot write a decent IMAP client, then if the developer > of an IMAP server can write around the problem, then he should do it > and embed the fix in the server code without calling it out in a > config switch. > > The situation is absolutely no different with hardware drivers. Take > a look at for example the comments in the ne2000 (ed) driver code, or > the DEC/Intel 21143 network card driver code (or man page) There are > a number of very badly borked up hardware implementations of those > network chipsets. Yet, do the driver authors of the ed or dc > driver make the admins flip switches in the
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> -Original Message- > From: Matt LaPlante [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:18 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: Andrew Falanga; Rob; FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > > > It's a chicken and egg problem. > > > > There's nothing wrong with writing an extremely strict standard. > > The issue is the implementation. > > > > If your server implementation is so strict that most clients have > > difficulty, then users will find something else and your standard > > will end up on the dustbin. > > > > It's better to start out with a strict standard and a forgiving > > server implementation, then as it falls into mainstream use, work > > with the client developers to correct their stuff. > > You've effectively described dovecot here. No, I haven't. > Its codebase is perhaps > designed to be very strict, however the same codebase also includes > configurable 'workarounds' (enabled by default in many distros) for > clients that are not up to spec. They're trivial to toggle and well > documented. > If you download and compile dovecot then is the default config template that is shipped with it enable the workarounds? No. The excuse that "enabled by default in many distros" is merely an excuse. Nobody who is serious about building a server for a lot of clients is going to be using some precompiled version, they are going to compile from source so that if a security hole is discovered they can patch it immediately. IF the switches DISABLED the "lax" behavior, and the defaults in the config templates were to not have the switches triggered, then it would meet the definition of a forgiving server implementation. But it doesen't even go that far. > So, this meets both criteria that it will "just work" with clients > now, and the clients themselves could theoretically (good luck with > Outlook) fix their code in the future. Outlook works just fine in IMAP mode with uw-imap, both regular Outlook and Outlook Express. > As far as I'm concerned, it's > a fairly ideal environment, It is good you spell out that this is your personal ideal. > and I'm glad the developer has gone to the > trouble to 1) stick to standards in the core code and 2) made a point > of documenting and providing workarounds for buggy clients. > It is a lot of extra work to encapsulate all the "alleged bugs" in separate code so you can provide "switches" for stick-up-their -asses-admins to flip. That is work that should have gone into speeding up the code. It is utterly wasted effort unless your goal is to allow admins who have penis envy the ability to jerk people around for their choice of e-mail clients. It isn't the mailserver administrator's business if Joe Idiot User who doesen't know any better chooses to use Outlook 97 as an IMAP client, to deny Joe Idiot access to the mailserver. The admin does not need to be playing silly games like this, setting up his server so that only some clients can work with it, others can't, then telling people their software of choice has bugs and fuck you, don't use it. Programmers jobs are to makes things work for users. If Mickeysoft's programmers cannot write a decent IMAP client, then if the developer of an IMAP server can write around the problem, then he should do it and embed the fix in the server code without calling it out in a config switch. The situation is absolutely no different with hardware drivers. Take a look at for example the comments in the ne2000 (ed) driver code, or the DEC/Intel 21143 network card driver code (or man page) There are a number of very badly borked up hardware implementations of those network chipsets. Yet, do the driver authors of the ed or dc driver make the admins flip switches in the driver to make the driver work with their particular borked-up chipset implementation? No. They write the driver code to work with all implementations, even the borked up ones. The dovecot author is engaged in technopolitics. It is a very bad thing to do. Whether the authors of bad IMAP client software deserve this is beside the issue. You need to understand that the ONLY lever that the Open Source community has to keep the giants like Microsoft paying some kind of attention to published standards so that everyone's stuff can interoperate, is the moral superiority lever. In other words, the Open Source community simply does not engage in predatory, circle-the-wagons, use-my-stuff-or-else behavior. We have worked a LONG time to get to this point. As a result of this, when there IS a problem between the commercial stuff - like for example Microsoft's Networking, and the O
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Dec 14, 2007 11:45 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Falanga > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:35 PM > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > > Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Questions > > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2007 10:06 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The developer is very adamant about writing dovecot strictly to > > > > the letter of the IMAP specification. He's also discovered many > > > > of the popular clients have bugs, and are unable to work (or at > > > > least have issues) with an IMAP server that goes purely by the rules. > > > > > > > > He refused to "break" his software to work around bugs on the > > > > client side, but ultimately compromised by writing in > > > > work-arounds that you can enable in the config file. You can > > > > enable them all if you like. > > > > > > > > > > Which is a really dumb attitude since the dovecot developer was > > > not the author of the IMAP standard and probably was in diapers > > > when the standard was first written: > > > > > > I agree with your sentiment that, "who can use a server that no client can > > connect to?" However, that being said, why write a standard you don't > > intend to adhere too? It's a crying shame that folks write standards for > > things like IMAP and e-mail client providers don't follow them. I wished > > more people were like this fellow who writes Dovecot! If more people were > > strict about server interfaces, then perhaps more vendors would > > write their > > code to the standard instead of those who write the standards > > enabling poor > > compliance by "dumbing" down their servers. > > > > It's a chicken and egg problem. > > There's nothing wrong with writing an extremely strict standard. > The issue is the implementation. > > If your server implementation is so strict that most clients have > difficulty, then users will find something else and your standard > will end up on the dustbin. > > It's better to start out with a strict standard and a forgiving > server implementation, then as it falls into mainstream use, work > with the client developers to correct their stuff. You've effectively described dovecot here. Its codebase is perhaps designed to be very strict, however the same codebase also includes configurable 'workarounds' (enabled by default in many distros) for clients that are not up to spec. They're trivial to toggle and well documented. So, this meets both criteria that it will "just work" with clients now, and the clients themselves could theoretically (good luck with Outlook) fix their code in the future. As far as I'm concerned, it's a fairly ideal environment, and I'm glad the developer has gone to the trouble to 1) stick to standards in the core code and 2) made a point of documenting and providing workarounds for buggy clients. I personally use dovecot (+postfix) with great success. Dovecot is modern, featureful, well documented, and its SASL impementation is particularly useful with postfix. I've had no difficulty with clients not being able to connect. > > We don't want to end up like Microsoft - which writes very lax > and contradictory standards, then makes up strict implementations. > Then every new release of their stuff breaks things. > > > Ted > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 12/14/2007 > 11:29 AM > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> On December 14, 2007 at 11:25PM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [ snip ] > It is dangerous to put any webmail application on a mailserver > for a couple reasons. First it is possible for users of the > app (assuming the app has the ability to save mail) to overflow > directories on the mailserver. However more seriously, any > www application is always subject to security issues - a hole in > the application, even if the apache version your using is secure - > allows spammers to relay through your mailserver. Mailservers are > of course, the most desired of spam relays. If you are using Postfix, placing the following in the 'main.cf' file can significantly reduce the potential regarding relaying from Apache. Of course, insure that the group is correct. authorized_submit_users = !www, static:all -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Falanga > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:35 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: Rob; FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > On Dec 13, 2007 10:06 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The developer is very adamant about writing dovecot strictly to > > > the letter of the IMAP specification. He's also discovered many > > > of the popular clients have bugs, and are unable to work (or at > > > least have issues) with an IMAP server that goes purely by the rules. > > > > > > He refused to "break" his software to work around bugs on the > > > client side, but ultimately compromised by writing in > > > work-arounds that you can enable in the config file. You can > > > enable them all if you like. > > > > > > > Which is a really dumb attitude since the dovecot developer was > > not the author of the IMAP standard and probably was in diapers > > when the standard was first written: > > > I agree with your sentiment that, "who can use a server that no client can > connect to?" However, that being said, why write a standard you don't > intend to adhere too? It's a crying shame that folks write standards for > things like IMAP and e-mail client providers don't follow them. I wished > more people were like this fellow who writes Dovecot! If more people were > strict about server interfaces, then perhaps more vendors would > write their > code to the standard instead of those who write the standards > enabling poor > compliance by "dumbing" down their servers. > It's a chicken and egg problem. There's nothing wrong with writing an extremely strict standard. The issue is the implementation. If your server implementation is so strict that most clients have difficulty, then users will find something else and your standard will end up on the dustbin. It's better to start out with a strict standard and a forgiving server implementation, then as it falls into mainstream use, work with the client developers to correct their stuff. We don't want to end up like Microsoft - which writes very lax and contradictory standards, then makes up strict implementations. Then every new release of their stuff breaks things. Ted No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 12/14/2007 11:29 AM ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> -Original Message- > From: Heiko Wundram (Beenic) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:57 PM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007 23:14:32 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: > > As I said I did a survey of all known web clients earlier this > > year that did not require a specific server - I might have even > posted it > > to the list. But I guess that's a challenge to some people to "prove" I > > don't know what > > I'm talking about. ;-) > > > > If you feel you must avoid "c-client" you can do it > > the following way: > > > > 1) The webmail that comes with SquirrelMail I would be surprised if it > > uses it - but, that webmail is inseparable from the SquirrelMail SMTP > > server and cannot be installed separately. I didn't test it because of > > that. > > Sorry to say this, but you do not know what you're talking about. > SquirrelMail > is a stand-alone webmail application, which has nothing to do and is not > affiliated with any form of SMTP server. > I'm glad to know that. I'll have to take a look at it then. > > Anyway, what you're probably referring to is the Courier webmail module > (called somewhat similarly) SqWebMail > (http://www.courier-mta.org/sqwebmail/), which really does not > use cclient, > as it accesses the mailboxes (in Maildir format) directly, but > this comes at > the price that the WebMail-server (and application) must have > some form of > read/write _filesystem access_ to all user's mailboxes being able > to access > the WebMail application, which generally is not what I as a > responsible admin > want to have; either, all mail accounts have to share the same > UID/GID as the > web application, or the web application requires some form of mod_suid > functionality, which is not okay in either case. > It is dangerous to put any webmail application on a mailserver for a couple reasons. First it is possible for users of the app (assuming the app has the ability to save mail) to overflow directories on the mailserver. However more seriously, any www application is always subject to security issues - a hole in the application, even if the apache version your using is secure - allows spammers to relay through your mailserver. Mailservers are of course, the most desired of spam relays. > As I said earlier, it's a felt fact (I have no hard evidence to > support this) > that SquirrelMail and IMP are the most commonly used and > installed WebMail > applications out in the wild, and you'll find almost no mail-server > administrator who hasn't heard of these two. And both of them (can) use > cclient indirectly through PHP, and at least until the last time > I set up a > mail-server with IMP (which is around a year ago) didn't have a pure PHP > implementation of the IMAP protocol. > I think OpenWebmail is probably equal or surpassing one of those. In terms of features, OpenWebmail has all the other webmail apps out there beaten - except for IMP, and possibly squirrelmail, but I don't know enough about squirrelmail to rate it. In the last analysis, the most users will gravitate towards the webmail app that has the most features. Ted No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 12/14/2007 11:29 AM ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Dec 13, 2007 10:06 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The developer is very adamant about writing dovecot strictly to > > the letter of the IMAP specification. He's also discovered many > > of the popular clients have bugs, and are unable to work (or at > > least have issues) with an IMAP server that goes purely by the rules. > > > > He refused to "break" his software to work around bugs on the > > client side, but ultimately compromised by writing in > > work-arounds that you can enable in the config file. You can > > enable them all if you like. > > > > Which is a really dumb attitude since the dovecot developer was > not the author of the IMAP standard and probably was in diapers > when the standard was first written: I agree with your sentiment that, "who can use a server that no client can connect to?" However, that being said, why write a standard you don't intend to adhere too? It's a crying shame that folks write standards for things like IMAP and e-mail client providers don't follow them. I wished more people were like this fellow who writes Dovecot! If more people were strict about server interfaces, then perhaps more vendors would write their code to the standard instead of those who write the standards enabling poor compliance by "dumbing" down their servers. Ok, I'm off my soap box. Andy -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007 23:14:32 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt: > As I said I did a survey of all known web clients earlier this > year that did not require a specific server - I might have even posted it > to the list. But I guess that's a challenge to some people to "prove" I > don't know what > I'm talking about. ;-) > > If you feel you must avoid "c-client" you can do it > the following way: > > 1) The webmail that comes with SquirrelMail I would be surprised if it > uses it - but, that webmail is inseparable from the SquirrelMail SMTP > server and cannot be installed separately. I didn't test it because of > that. Sorry to say this, but you do not know what you're talking about. SquirrelMail is a stand-alone webmail application, which has nothing to do and is not affiliated with any form of SMTP server. Check out SquirrelMail: http://www.squirrelmail.org/ Quoting from there: """ What is SquirrelMail? SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. It includes built-in pure PHP support for the IMAP and SMTP protocols, and all pages render in pure HTML 4.0 (with no JavaScript required) for maximum compatibility across browsers. It has very few requirements and is very easy to configure and install. SquirrelMail has all the functionality you would want from an email client, including strong MIME support, address books, and folder manipulation. """ As I explained earlier, SquirrelMail uses the PHP IMAP extension, which in turn uses cclient to access IMAP mailboxes, if you don't use the pure PHP IMAP implementation bundled with it (which I didn't know it had until rechecking their site just now; all the setups of SquirrelMail I did so far used the IMAP extension directly and there was a dependency on it earlier AFAIR). Pretty much the same thing goes for IMP (i.e., the Horde WebMail plugin); I'll save you the link to the page now, I guess you can use Google. Anyway, what you're probably referring to is the Courier webmail module (called somewhat similarly) SqWebMail (http://www.courier-mta.org/sqwebmail/), which really does not use cclient, as it accesses the mailboxes (in Maildir format) directly, but this comes at the price that the WebMail-server (and application) must have some form of read/write _filesystem access_ to all user's mailboxes being able to access the WebMail application, which generally is not what I as a responsible admin want to have; either, all mail accounts have to share the same UID/GID as the web application, or the web application requires some form of mod_suid functionality, which is not okay in either case. As I said earlier, it's a felt fact (I have no hard evidence to support this) that SquirrelMail and IMP are the most commonly used and installed WebMail applications out in the wild, and you'll find almost no mail-server administrator who hasn't heard of these two. And both of them (can) use cclient indirectly through PHP, and at least until the last time I set up a mail-server with IMP (which is around a year ago) didn't have a pure PHP implementation of the IMAP protocol. -- Heiko Wundram Product & Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Heiko Wundram > (Beenic) > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 7:46 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007 16:27:42 schrieb RW: > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:06:25 -0800 > > > > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Consider also that the majority of webinterfaces to mailservers > > > are written using the uw-c-client imap libraries. So you go ahead > > > and install dovecot - then watch when you install a webinterface > > > the port manager sucking in the uw imap stuff anyway. Might as > > > well run the uw imap server if your going to run the uw libraries. > > > > None of the major webmail clients appear to depend on cclient > > > > _The_ major webmail clients (Horde-IMP and SquirrelMail come to > mind as the > most used ones immediately) are written in PHP and require the > IMAP extension > for PHP (to do IMAP), which in turn depends on cclient, so basically the > major webmail clients do depend on cclient (even though indirectly). > > Why the cclient dependency (for the IMAP extension of PHP) > doesn't show up in > your grepping of ports I don't know, but it's an easy check for > you to test > that the IMAP extension for PHP either comes with cclient > bundled, or with a > dependency on it that's slightly hidden in the Makefile. > As I said I did a survey of all known web clients earlier this year that did not require a specific server - I might have even posted it to the list. But I guess that's a challenge to some people to "prove" I don't know what I'm talking about. ;-) If you feel you must avoid "c-client" you can do it the following way: 1) The webmail that comes with SquirrelMail I would be surprised if it uses it - but, that webmail is inseparable from the SquirrelMail SMTP server and cannot be installed separately. I didn't test it because of that. 2) Openwebmail is one of the few webmails that can -directly- access the mailboxes through the filesystem - of course you have to configure it to do this - and I think the port of it has the PHP imap extension listed as a dependency anyway. Neomail is the predicessor to openwebmail and is the same - of course, it has several known security holes. 3) Nullsoft webmail is pop3 only and does not use the c-client libs. There are significat problems with running webmail using a pop3 backend. 4) ilohamail wrote his own imap library and does not use c-client. Its not a bad webmail but the developer lost interest in it a while ago. you need to load it from the CVS. signatures in the cvs distro are broken, everything else works. Ted No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.2/1184 - Release Date: 12/14/2007 11:29 AM ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007 16:27:42 schrieb RW: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:06:25 -0800 > > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Consider also that the majority of webinterfaces to mailservers > > are written using the uw-c-client imap libraries. So you go ahead > > and install dovecot - then watch when you install a webinterface > > the port manager sucking in the uw imap stuff anyway. Might as > > well run the uw imap server if your going to run the uw libraries. > > None of the major webmail clients appear to depend on cclient > _The_ major webmail clients (Horde-IMP and SquirrelMail come to mind as the most used ones immediately) are written in PHP and require the IMAP extension for PHP (to do IMAP), which in turn depends on cclient, so basically the major webmail clients do depend on cclient (even though indirectly). Why the cclient dependency (for the IMAP extension of PHP) doesn't show up in your grepping of ports I don't know, but it's an easy check for you to test that the IMAP extension for PHP either comes with cclient bundled, or with a dependency on it that's slightly hidden in the Makefile. -- Heiko Wundram Product & Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:06:25 -0800
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider also that the majority of webinterfaces to mailservers
> are written using the uw-c-client imap libraries. So you go ahead
> and install dovecot - then watch when you install a webinterface
> the port manager sucking in the uw imap stuff anyway. Might as
> well run the uw imap server if your going to run the uw libraries.
None of the major webmail clients appear to depend on cclient
$ find /usr/ports/ -name Makefile | xargs grep "mail/cclient"
/usr/ports/mail/cclient/Makefile:# $FreeBSD: ports/mail/cclient/Makefile,v 1.41
2007/10/01 04:03:01 marcus Exp $
/usr/ports/mail/imap-uw/Makefile:# This port must have the same SSL settings as
mail/cclient, which it depends on
/usr/ports/mail/imap-uw/Makefile:LIB_DEPENDS=
c-client4.9:${PORTSDIR}/mail/cclient
/usr/ports/mail/mailsync/Makefile:LIB_DEPENDS=
c-client4.9:${PORTSDIR}/mail/cclient
/usr/ports/mail/p5-Mail-CClient/Makefile:LIB_DEPENDS=
c-client4.9:${PORTSDIR}/mail/cclient
/usr/ports/mail/postilion/Makefile:LIB_DEPENDS=
c-client4:${PORTSDIR}/mail/cclient
/usr/ports/mail/prayer/Makefile:BUILD_DEPENDS=
${LOCALBASE}/lib/libc-client4.a:${PORTSDIR}/mail/cclient
/usr/ports/mail/tkrat2/Makefile:
c-client4.9:${PORTSDIR}/mail/cclient
/usr/ports/www/ismail/Makefile:LIB_DEPENDS+=
c-client4.9:${PORTSDIR}/mail/cclient
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rob > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:42 AM > To: Andrew Falanga > Cc: FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > Andrew Falanga wrote: > > sounds like everyone is sold on dovecot. Great!. I've a few > questions. > > anyone explain to me what problems they have with mail clients > attaching? > > See http://wiki.dovecot.org/Clients . This shows some > interesting problems > > The developer is very adamant about writing dovecot strictly to > the letter of the IMAP specification. He's also discovered many > of the popular clients have bugs, and are unable to work (or at > least have issues) with an IMAP server that goes purely by the rules. > > He refused to "break" his software to work around bugs on the > client side, but ultimately compromised by writing in > work-arounds that you can enable in the config file. You can > enable them all if you like. > Which is a really dumb attitude since the dovecot developer was not the author of the IMAP standard and probably was in diapers when the standard was first written: http://www.imap.org/about/history.status.html And in addition, who can use a server that no client can connect to? So there are a lot of mail clients that have IMAP bugs. So what? What is important? Users being able to manipulate mail on the server with their client of choice, or a server that is almost impossible to connect to? Consider also that the majority of webinterfaces to mailservers are written using the uw-c-client imap libraries. So you go ahead and install dovecot - then watch when you install a webinterface the port manager sucking in the uw imap stuff anyway. Might as well run the uw imap server if your going to run the uw libraries. Ted No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007 9:15 AM ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerard Seibert > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:46 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > > On December 13, 2007 at 11:40AM Andrew Falanga wrote: > > [ snip ] > > > Second, how do programs like dovecot manage users? Does each > user of the > > e-mail system need to be a user of the FreeBSD system > (installed locally)? > > No, Dovecot can handle virtual users just fine. I use it in > conjunction with > Postfix. You might want to read up on how to use virtual users > with Dovecot > and Postfix. Both sites offer extensive help and the both of > their respective > forums will be glad to assist you. > > Keep in mind with the FreeBSD db files for the password files, the old problems with linear searches of large passwords do not exist any longer. There is no benefit to virtualize users on a FreeBSD mailserver unless your bound and determined to use modified tools for every bit of management you want to do on the server - or unless your working with hundreds of thousands of users and a mailserver cluster. Ted No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007 9:15 AM ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
We run large mailservers with uw-imap quite well. uw-imap has no problems dealing with 500MB mailboxes with 15,000 or more messages in them. Ted > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Falanga > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:31 PM > To: User Questions > Subject: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use > > > Hi, > > I'm working on setting up a server for both WWW and e-mail. We're using > apache 2.2 w/PHP support (for phpWebSite) and for e-mail I'd like to stay > with sendmail for the MTA, but I've not used any servers that > will allow for > POP and IMAP. What in the ports would be good suggestions from those here > who've used them? > > thanks, > Andy > > -- > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is it such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007 9:15 AM ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
Andrew Falanga wrote: sounds like everyone is sold on dovecot. Great!. I've a few questions. anyone explain to me what problems they have with mail clients attaching? See http://wiki.dovecot.org/Clients . This shows some interesting problems The developer is very adamant about writing dovecot strictly to the letter of the IMAP specification. He's also discovered many of the popular clients have bugs, and are unable to work (or at least have issues) with an IMAP server that goes purely by the rules. He refused to "break" his software to work around bugs on the client side, but ultimately compromised by writing in work-arounds that you can enable in the config file. You can enable them all if you like. -R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
Andrew Falanga wrote: Hi, I'm working on setting up a server for both WWW and e-mail. We're using apache 2.2 w/PHP support (for phpWebSite) and for e-mail I'd like to stay with sendmail for the MTA, but I've not used any servers that will allow for POP and IMAP. What in the ports would be good suggestions from those here who've used them? Everyone has mentioned dovecot -- maybe I should check it out -- but I have been using courier-imap for 5 or 6 years and like that POP/IMAP package. All clients connect fine, it does SSL (POPs/IMAPs) and never gives me any trouble. The multiple rc.d files are kinda silly. I've been using it on a mail machine to serve 200 domains and about 2,500 email addresses -- never seems to crash, never requires restarts. Oh, and I use sendmail as the MTA (with clamav/milter-regex/sid-milter/milter-greylist). - Rudy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Dec 13, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Daniel Bye wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:40:50AM -0700, Andrew Falanga wrote: sounds like everyone is sold on dovecot. Great!. I've a few questions. I went and looked it up on freshports.org and found the main web site. Can anyone explain to me what problems they have with mail clients attaching? See http://wiki.dovecot.org/Clients . This shows some interesting problems and I'd like to know if everyone using dovecot sees these problems. I use mutt 1.4.2.3i, which works without problems. I have also used Thunderbird with it, as does my business partner, and spotted no issues there either. Second, how do programs like dovecot manage users? Does each user of the e-mail system need to be a user of the FreeBSD system (installed locally)? As Gerard said, dovecot can handle virtual users. There are several ways to do this - probably the most scalable will be SQL and LDAP, although you can use passwd-file as well. There's some good documentation on the web site, particularly http://wiki.dovecot.org/Authentication. Dan Sorry if this has been suggested, I'm coming in to the conversation late. There is a very detailed how-to on www.purplehat.org on setting up a Postfix server with dovecot and mysql. They even walk you through setting up spam filtering and anti-virus. HTH - Eric F Crist Secure Computing Networks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:40:50AM -0700, Andrew Falanga wrote: > sounds like everyone is sold on dovecot. Great!. I've a few questions. I > went and looked it up on freshports.org and found the main web site. Can > anyone explain to me what problems they have with mail clients attaching? > See http://wiki.dovecot.org/Clients . This shows some interesting problems > and I'd like to know if everyone using dovecot sees these problems. I use mutt 1.4.2.3i, which works without problems. I have also used Thunderbird with it, as does my business partner, and spotted no issues there either. > > Second, how do programs like dovecot manage users? Does each user of the > e-mail system need to be a user of the FreeBSD system (installed locally)? As Gerard said, dovecot can handle virtual users. There are several ways to do this - probably the most scalable will be SQL and LDAP, although you can use passwd-file as well. There's some good documentation on the web site, particularly http://wiki.dovecot.org/Authentication. Dan -- Daniel Bye _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) - against HTML, vCards and X - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ pgp6jDohN9QhC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
> On December 13, 2007 at 11:40AM Andrew Falanga wrote: [ snip ] > Second, how do programs like dovecot manage users? Does each user of the > e-mail system need to be a user of the FreeBSD system (installed locally)? No, Dovecot can handle virtual users just fine. I use it in conjunction with Postfix. You might want to read up on how to use virtual users with Dovecot and Postfix. Both sites offer extensive help and the both of their respective forums will be glad to assist you. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Dec 13, 2007 9:27 AM, Monah Baki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll 3rd it too, been using it for 2 years, amazing. > > > > Daniel Bye wrote: > >>> with sendmail for the MTA, but I've not used any servers that will > >>> allow for > >>> POP and IMAP. What in the ports would be good suggestions from those > >>> here > >>> who've used them? > >> > >> dovecot is excellent - easy setup, stable and reliable, provides IMAP > > > > I'll 2nd Dovecot. Been running it for IMAP for 3 years or more. See > > ports/mail/dovecot and www.dovecot.org > sounds like everyone is sold on dovecot. Great!. I've a few questions. I went and looked it up on freshports.org and found the main web site. Can anyone explain to me what problems they have with mail clients attaching? See http://wiki.dovecot.org/Clients . This shows some interesting problems and I'd like to know if everyone using dovecot sees these problems. Second, how do programs like dovecot manage users? Does each user of the e-mail system need to be a user of the FreeBSD system (installed locally)? Thanks, Andy -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
I'll 3rd it too, been using it for 2 years, amazing. > Daniel Bye wrote: >>> with sendmail for the MTA, but I've not used any servers that will >>> allow for >>> POP and IMAP. What in the ports would be good suggestions from those >>> here >>> who've used them? >> >> dovecot is excellent - easy setup, stable and reliable, provides IMAP > > I'll 2nd Dovecot. Been running it for IMAP for 3 years or more. See > ports/mail/dovecot and www.dovecot.org > > -R > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > BSD Networking, Microsoft Notworking ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
Daniel Bye wrote: with sendmail for the MTA, but I've not used any servers that will allow for POP and IMAP. What in the ports would be good suggestions from those here who've used them? dovecot is excellent - easy setup, stable and reliable, provides IMAP I'll 2nd Dovecot. Been running it for IMAP for 3 years or more. See ports/mail/dovecot and www.dovecot.org -R ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Suggestions please for what POP or IMAP servers to use
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:31:11PM -0700, Andrew Falanga wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on setting up a server for both WWW and e-mail. We're using > apache 2.2 w/PHP support (for phpWebSite) and for e-mail I'd like to stay > with sendmail for the MTA, but I've not used any servers that will allow for > POP and IMAP. What in the ports would be good suggestions from those here > who've used them? dovecot is excellent - easy setup, stable and reliable, provides IMAP and POP support and works well with e.g. squirrelmail. It's not as full featured as the Cyrus or courier IMAP servers, but if you don't need shared mailboxes etc, it's definitely worth a look. Dan -- Daniel Bye _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) - against HTML, vCards and X - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ pgpvHk8JxXtmQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
