I just did that.. I can send you hte info of my conf for the dovecot Remo
Jeff Koch wrote: > > 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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:08:54 -0600 >> To: <email@example.com> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Best Regards, > > Jeff Koch, Intersessions > > > > > > !DSPAM:4769edc2310541346215843!