is dovecot really better than uw-imapd?

[Kenneth Porter]

--On Monday, June 21, 2004 11:01 AM +1000 Marc Lucke <marc at marcsnet.com> 
wrote:

[massive quote removed]

> I've been warned about this.  If I could retract my question.  My
> apologies for those that have seen this thread a million times before.
> I'm way more interested in my dovecot question.

Notice how I clipped the posts above yours? If you're going to participate 
in public written forums, you need to learn how to trim all that's 
irrelevant, leaving the reader with just the context needed to understand 
what you're replying to. We can check the archives if we need any more than 
that.

Returning to original topic, UW-IMAP was dropped mainly for what appear to 
be maintenance issues. The upstream author isn't particularly interested in 
working with the distro providers, or at least this is what I gather from 
reading the RH-authored bugzillas about his package.

If you provide any publicly-accessible service, you should subscribe to at 
least the announcement list for that subsystem, to get early warning of 
security and operational issues. For BIND and DHCP, subscribe to the ISC 
lists. For Dovecot, subscribe to the Dovecot lists. (UW-IMAP's list is 
"cclient", referring to the underlying library.) A quick google or a check 
of the documentation in /usr/share/doc should tell you how to subscribe for 
each service you provide.

I'd also recommend checking comp.mail.imap and comp.mail.sendmail (if you 
use that MTA) regularly. Comparing Dovecot, UW-IMAP, and other IMAP 
products would best be done in comp.mail.imap. Mark Crispin, author of 
UW-IMAP and the IMAP RFC, monitors that newsgroup.