Yes, it's easy. And there is convert script for transparent migration, see http://wiki.dovecot.org/Migration/Courier
2007/12/20, Jeff Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > We use Bill Shupp's toaster. Would anyone know whether Dovecot is an easy > replacement for Courier? > > > At 10:50 PM 12/19/2007, you wrote: > >I have to second, third, and fourth that. We moved from Courier to > >Dovecot and the performance change was dramatic. We have 5,000+ accounts > >on 2 clustered (active / active) servers utilizing GFS for the file system > >on a SAS SAN and the fact that Dovecot had built in support for clustered > >setups was a major plus. Had a few issues off the bat with POP3 UID's but > >quickly fixed that one thanks to Dovecots easy to change UID > >definitions. Don't think I'll ever change back. > > > >-- > >Ed McLain > > > > > >________________________________ > >From: Rick Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:08:54 -0600 > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Conversation: [vchkpw] [OT] IMAP Servers: Dovecot or Binc? > >Subject: Re: [vchkpw] [OT] IMAP Servers: Dovecot or Binc? > > > >On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:11 -0800, Tom Collins wrote: > > > Courier-IMAP seems to be putting a heavy load on my server when > > > someone accesses a mailbox with a large number of messages in it. > > > > > > What's the preferred IMAP server for a machine that will have 100-200 > > > connections (plan for growth...) but may have an occasional mailbox > > > with 1000+ messages in it. I've searched the archives and tried to > > > google for "imap server performance" and "imap server comparison" but > > > haven't come up with much after an hour. > > > > > My impression is that Dovecot performs well, better than courier, but > > > I'm wondering if anyone can offer up some real-world numbers to help > > > me make my decision. > > > >Dovecot has really come out in the past year or so. I started with .99, > >I upgraded from Courier, but honestly it wasn't really up to date. > > > >Dovecot's indexing showed an immediate improvement on large mailboxes. > >With 1.0.5, the only issue I have is with a few older Mac clients. For > >me this affects about 4 out of 450 clients total. > > > >I don't have any numbers, but I've had at least 1500 messages in my > >INBOX, not including subfolders, with great performance. The change was > >so dramatic I didn't need any numbers. > > > >Rick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >!DSPAM:4769e6cf310541743218427! > > Best Regards, > > Jeff Koch, Intersessions > > -- Lampa
