We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
I too missed Cyrus imap when I recently moved my home mail setup from Cyrus/Postfix/FreeBSD to Cyrus/Postfix/RH 7.3. However, you might consider that under the new regime, Red Hat will not be supporting the commodity OS in the same way as before. Therefore a Red Hat "blessing" on Cyrus imapd might mean they get someone at CMU to do the packaging. (I'm quite willing to be slapped down by someone at Red Hat on this. But that's the way I read the new direction.) You would essentially be no better off in that event than if you built from source and stayed current with CMU updates. I don't know if Cyrus imapd is in RHEL, but if it is, you might consider that option, particularly if support is an issue. The cost on a server isn't unreasonable for a critical infrastructure app like imap, IMHO.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 09:38, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
Stephen Smoogen wrote :
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
Do you know dovecot? It's to imap servers what vsftpd is to ftp servers ;-) I've put it into production not long ago with postfix, amavisd-new and clamav, all architectured around LDAP and Maildir boxes, it rocks!
I'd prefer seeing this one go into RHL rather than Cyrus or Courier.
Matthias
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 11:18, Chris Ricker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Elliot Lee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Matthias Saou wrote:
I'd prefer seeing this one go into RHL rather than Cyrus or Courier.
It's already in. :)
though there are, err, issues that need resolving on upgrades b/c of it
I've seen this claim twice now.
What are the "issues"?
BTW, if it supports Maildir++ sub-folders, I/we might start using it instead of courier-imap.
How does dovecot compare to courier-imap in:
* memory/cpu consumption * performance * featureset
Dax Kelson Guru Labs
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Dax Kelson wrote:
though there are, err, issues that need resolving on upgrades b/c of it
I've seen this claim twice now.
What are the "issues"?
Prior to this point, RHL has only shipped uw-imap. If you upgrade a server using uw-imap, last I looked:
* both dovecot (Sys V init) and uw-imap (xinetd) were enabled, so you get converted to dovecot whether you wanted or not
* clients have to be configured differently for uw and for dovecot, so after the upgrade, you have to reconfigure all the clients (and then again if you downgrade)
I've not bugzilla'd it yet b/c I've not had time to do a systematic look, but at some point I will
How does dovecot compare to courier-imap in:
- memory/cpu consumption
- performance
- featureset
It's much better than courier in featureset, since it actually supports mbox. Performance / memory / cpu it's better than uw (but what isn't? ;-). I can't say about courier b/c it's maildirs and, for lots of reasons, I'm not.
later, chris
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:58, Chris Ricker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Dax Kelson wrote:
- both dovecot (Sys V init) and uw-imap (xinetd) were enabled, so you get
converted to dovecot whether you wanted or not
dovecot doesn't start by default any more (that was a bug :)
- clients have to be configured differently for uw and for dovecot, so after
the upgrade, you have to reconfigure all the clients (and then again if you downgrade)
If you've overriden client defaults, yes. The subscription file is annoying -- there's a simple way to have dovecot do that migration the first time, though and it's easy enough to throw in. I'm still hoping Timo will make it a zero work thing soon, though ;-)
How does dovecot compare to courier-imap in:
- memory/cpu consumption
- performance
- featureset
It's much better than courier in featureset, since it actually supports mbox. Performance / memory / cpu it's better than uw (but what isn't? ;-). I can't say about courier b/c it's maildirs and, for lots of reasons, I'm not.
Seems better in performance/memory than Courier for me with my lots of mail. And oodles better than uw imap.
Jeremy
I wasnt aware of it.. the lack of shared mailboxes is a bad point for it for us.. but I will see what it brings.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 11:13, Matthias Saou wrote:
Stephen Smoogen wrote :
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
Do you know dovecot? It's to imap servers what vsftpd is to ftp servers ;-) I've put it into production not long ago with postfix, amavisd-new and clamav, all architectured around LDAP and Maildir boxes, it rocks!
I'd prefer seeing this one go into RHL rather than Cyrus or Courier.
Matthias
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:13, Matthias Saou wrote:
Stephen Smoogen wrote :
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
Do you know dovecot? It's to imap servers what vsftpd is to ftp servers ;-) I've put it into production not long ago with postfix, amavisd-new and clamav, all architectured around LDAP and Maildir boxes, it rocks!
I'd prefer seeing this one go into RHL rather than Cyrus or Courier.
Aye, dovecot is a joy to work with. It's missing a few essential features, but if they are covered up, I can't imagine much reason to use another IMAP server for most uses. (Not sure how well dovecot scales to the hundred-thousand user limit.)
Going with whichever IMAP server, tho, it might be nice to include a config tool for the mail server. Just the basic stuff, like local domains, standard unqualified domain, etc. Covering outgoing SMTP, and POP3/IMAP. Might help bump Debian offer my servers. ;-)
Matthias
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 10:13, Matthias Saou wrote:
Do you know dovecot? It's to imap servers what vsftpd is to ftp servers ;-) I've put it into production not long ago with postfix, amavisd-new and clamav, all architectured around LDAP and Maildir boxes, it rocks!
I'd prefer seeing this one go into RHL rather than Cyrus or Courier.
I'd prefer to see both. Many of us already have substantial investments in Cyrus installations ("investments" being expertise using it and having installations where migration would be non-trivial).
However, Dovecot is very appealing and would fit a different problem domain than Cyrus. Dovecot, from what I can tell, should be mailbox compatible with UW-IMAP, which Cyrus definitely isn't, so upgrading a small site to Dovecot should be easy.
On other hand, Cyrus has a number of advantages, especially for large sites: o Multiple partitions to accomodate growth and performance tuning. o Clustering with Murder. o Squatter back-end indexes, which make mailbox searches very fast. o Skiplist databases, which are fast. o LMTP delivery (don't need to run an MTA on the IMAP server). o Single-instance store. o Virtual domains. o Sieve filtering (less flexible but considerably faster than procmail).
And finally: o Fairly long term commitment by a stable organization. o Mature, widely-used and tested codebase.
The last two aren't meant to be slams on Dovecot; it's development structure is unknown to me, but these I do know about Cyrus.
Wil
BTW,
Worth mentioning maybe. I've just finished the very first version of a document which explains all the configuring I had to go through to get a working assembly of :
- Postfix 2 - Dovecot - Spamassassin - AMaViSd-new - Clamav - OpenLDAP
It is for RHL 7.3 and links only to 7.3 packages, but installing on 9 or Severn shouldn't be very hard, and the same config changes will apply.
http://freshrpms.net/docs/mail-server/
And as a goody, there's even a screenshot ;-)
Matthias
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 09:38, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
No one yet knows what the process will be, althrough there are no doubt plenty of us interested in seeing Cyrus supported in a more central way.
I myself am using RPMs from Simon Matter, which are at http://home.teleport.ch/simix/
I've got binaries built on 7.3 which set some of the non-default options at http://ftp.nakedape.cc/nakedape/rh73/rpm/.
Wil
Building cyrus imapd from source isn't all that bad. But you also need sasl2. For my RH 7.3 setup I installed cyrus-sasl-2.1.13 with a simple ./configure;make;make install. For cyrus-imapd-2.1.12, it was ./configure --with-krb=no --with-auth=unix;make;make install
You then have to create /etc/sasldb2 and add at least one user/password with saslpasswd2. Finally, chown cyrus /etc/sasldb2. Set your saslauth scheme in /etc/imapd.conf and your authentication is set.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 10:35, Wil Cooley wrote:
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 09:38, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
No one yet knows what the process will be, althrough there are no doubt plenty of us interested in seeing Cyrus supported in a more central way.
I myself am using RPMs from Simon Matter, which are at http://home.teleport.ch/simix/
I've got binaries built on 7.3 which set some of the non-default options at http://ftp.nakedape.cc/nakedape/rh73/rpm/.
Wil
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 11:01, Howard Owen wrote:
Building cyrus imapd from source isn't all that bad. But you also need sasl2. For my RH 7.3 setup I installed cyrus-sasl-2.1.13 with a simple ./configure;make;make install. For cyrus-imapd-2.1.12, it was ./configure --with-krb=no --with-auth=unix;make;make install
No, it's not, but I have several installations, so I prefer that they be reproducible. I also just used the back-ported cyrus-sasl2 packages.
You then have to create /etc/sasldb2 and add at least one user/password with saslpasswd2. Finally, chown cyrus /etc/sasldb2. Set your saslauth scheme in /etc/imapd.conf and your authentication is set.
You don't need sasldb2 if you're not actually using it.
Wil
Stephen Smoogen (smoogen@lanl.gov) said:
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap - taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
Bill
Bill Nottingham wrote :
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Well, I'll miss wu-imap just about as much as I miss wu-ftpd :-) So as long as dovecot, which is now my fav', stays...
Matthias
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 12:35, Bill Nottingham wrote:
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
+1
Wil
My opinion is clearly.. add cyrus-imap and remove uw-imap.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:35, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Stephen Smoogen (smoogen@lanl.gov) said:
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
Bill
-- Rhl-devel-list mailing list Rhl-devel-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-devel-list
hbo shoots up his hand. "Me too," he says.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:30, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
My opinion is clearly.. add cyrus-imap and remove uw-imap.
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:35, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Stephen Smoogen (smoogen@lanl.gov) said:
We are in the process of moving our IMAP servers from the redhat default to the cyrus-imapd as we have found them to be a bit more robust than WU. Currently we are using a set based off of Ivoca Linux but would like a 'blessed' version included into RHL at some point.
Other than an RFE is there anything we can do to push this through?
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
Bill
-- Rhl-devel-list mailing list Rhl-devel-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-devel-list
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Bill Nottingham wrote:
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
I think it's a good long-term idea, but I think uw-imap should ship and be marked in RELEASE-NOTES as slated for future removal (some of us actually do read the RELEASE-NOTES and plan accordingly ;-)
later, chris
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:32:34PM -0600, Chris Ricker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Bill Nottingham wrote:
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
I think it's a good long-term idea, but I think uw-imap should ship and be marked in RELEASE-NOTES as slated for future removal (some of us actually do read the RELEASE-NOTES and plan accordingly ;-)
I agree with Chris. Although, I don't like the default install configurations installing multiple tools that all do the same thing. Perhaps the default should be to only provide either cyrus-imap or dovecot?
mark
I agree with Chris. Although, I don't like the default install configurations installing multiple tools that all do the same thing. Perhaps the default should be to only provide either cyrus-imap or dovecot?
I disagree in this case.
Cyrus and dovecot handle imap for two different scales of systems right now. Cyrus being a larger more complex system and dovecot being much more straightforward.
-sv
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:08:45AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
I agree with Chris. Although, I don't like the default install configurations installing multiple tools that all do the same thing. Perhaps the default should be to only provide either cyrus-imap or dovecot?
I disagree in this case.
Cyrus and dovecot handle imap for two different scales of systems right now. Cyrus being a larger more complex system and dovecot being much more straightforward.
I suspect that a lot more people, in terms of actual desktop installations, would choose dovecot or not dovecot over cyrus-imap.
My main peave is with distribution bloat. I hate having 3 or 4 implementations of the same thing, especially when I don't use any of them.
Having the RPM's on the CD is good enough for me. I can install it if I really want it. I assume that a system that required capacity and scalability, that wanted to use cyrus-imap, would have a competent enough system administrator to execute 'rpm -Uvh cyrus-imap...' after installation. :-)
mark
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
We've got significant investment in uw-imap. I don't mind change as long as it's seamless.
-Chuck
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 06:59, Chuck Wolber wrote:
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
We've got significant investment in uw-imap. I don't mind change as long as it's seamless.
Pretty seemless. It was a one-liner config change in /etc/dovecot.conf so that it doesn't look in ~/Mail for additional mbox files, but in ~ (as UW-IMAP does).
I'll probably change to Cyrus (and would even volunteer to help with the package) in the future, though. Shared mailboxes are yummy, even with only two users ;-).
Nils
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 12:35, Bill Nottingham wrote:
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
I wrote to Simon Matter who has maintained Cyrus IMAP RPMs for 2.1 and whose RPMs are indubitably the most widely used for 2.1. He expressed interest in continuing development of his packages but wasn't aware of the new development model.
Wil
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 20:09, Wil Cooley wrote:
I wrote to Simon Matter who has maintained Cyrus IMAP RPMs for 2.1 and whose RPMs are indubitably the most widely used for 2.1.
Indeed.
He expressed interest in continuing development of his packages but wasn't aware of the new development model.
Apart from the clever authentication scheme, from shared folders and the very scalable architecture, IMO one of the best features of Cyrus is Sieve, the mail filtering language. To be able to filter messages server-side _without_ scripting hacks bolted onto the daemon Home Depot-style (not to mention procmail and stuff like that) - that's amazing.
The whole point about IMAP is mobility - the users are able to go places, change their workstations and yet access their mail folders in an uniform fashion. Hence, the server-side filtering is such a natural development, i'm amazed there aren't more IMAP daemons with native filtering schemes. Well, probably everyone thought classic scripting is enough, which is not, at least not when you want to scale things up.
On my personal mail server, i need to access mail from at least two different workstations (both running Evolution at this moment) and one Webmail gateway. Not having a proper server-side filtering scheme makes it very difficult for me to maintain a consistent structure and content of my e-mail. That's why i'm planning to move my personal server on to Cyrus, even though it's a really small system, with very few users (and Cyrus might seem to be overkill for it).
I think the inclusion of an "official" Cyrus package in Red Hat is a _very_ good thing. Make it the higher-end IMAP server, and use something else for simple and straightforward installations (i forgot what's the name of the other imapd proposal for Severn).
Of course, UW must stay around for a while, but having three different IMAP daemons is kinda too much. Or not. :-) <shrug>
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:35, Bill Nottingham wrote:
We're actually considering for this upcoming release:
- adding in cyrus-imap
- taking out uw-imap
Opinions?
Uh, yeah. :)
The mbox sucks, Maildir rules and uw-imap is a dog.
Anything that supports Maildir is plus in my book. I've always been a fan of courier-imap.
Dax