On 12/06/2016 08:41, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > I'm not concerned about database space, but requiring an extension > feels ungood. However, the number of aox users is now in two digits > and probably dropping, and they all are capable of adding an > extension, so IMO it's fine either way. > It is disappointing the userbase is so low; I'd switched to AOX because it helped deduplicate about 50GB of mail into about 5GB and was sold on it from then. Whenever I upgrade a mail server, I switch to AOX because it helps with typical modern emails where people receive a 10Mb attachment and then send it round 15-20 other people in the company and everything is duplicated endlessly consume enormous amounts of storage. The ability to hold deleted mail has let me claw back important emails multiple times, especially when people remember they need it 6 months later (I have a long retention period - for most, I just keep forever and don't vacuum since the space penalty is low).
In short, AOX looks to me like the sort of IMAP server that people should be considering, especially if they want an open source stack and the advantage of database backed storage on a database which can scale and supports things like online backup and replication. Admittedly, the website has some things which make it look very dated, such as references to old version as if they were current and the fact the last release is from a few years ago. Although the GIT repository is mentioned and checking it shows recent activity, so anyone looking will see activity. Perhaps a new release (and a few page cleanups) will show it's still active ? Are there any major IMAP features missing? If there are some, perhaps a list to see what can be added would make sense? I'd be disappointed to give up on AOX and would rather see some updates and perhaps an announcement to HN to try and get some new interest. My 2c anyway. Jim
